CubeRootOfTrue"We are aware that emails to [email protected] are being returned as undeliverable. Please send your weekly accomplishments to [email protected] and cc your supervisor."
Big Balls' mailbox is full, how sad they don't know how to do the things
You've highlighted a crucial point about irrelevant claims and their connection to logical fallacies. It's indeed common for people to introduce irrelevant information in an attempt to undermine someone's argument or position, as in your tie example, and this does point to the limitations of simplistic, binary views of logic
Hey, it's not just me, ChatGPT also knows about it. So there is hope for the future
What does "pseudo relevant mean?"
I finally asked ChatGPT to explain to me why RM3 is considered "pseudo relevant"
This is one of those things that's so blindingly obvious I couldn't see it until somebody else pointed it out.
We start with the system R, which is defined in terms of a ternary relation Rxyz. There are a number of axioms.
RM is R + M = R plus the Mingle axiom.
\[ 𝑝→(𝑝→𝑝) \]So in that world, "R" is the definition of relevance. RM3 can prove a statement that R rejects, namely M, the Mingle axiom. Duh.
OK. I've mentioned elsewhere that M is forced if you construct RM properly. They added M to R because it's necessary.
But the question still remains! Why is something defined in terms of a relation Rxyz that models *syntactic* presence of a variable or not, the same thing as a computational set of 3x3 matrices ...
RM3 solves relevance fallacies just fine, using inconsistent values instead of irrelevant variables
@samlitzinger they love fallacies of relevance. you posit something completely unknown, then use forced binary choice and flawed logic to conclude anything they want
"If what I'm saying is true, you can conclude anything"
is a classical paradox. Classical in the sense that it is only a paradox in binary logic
@maonu 'Mathematical logic is somewhat peculiar even in science, not general enough to be "foundational" logic imo'
Depends. Are you talking about Binary logic? Then yeah, that's a very special case, and not really the best way to do it. Better approaches have been developed (RM3 is 'constructive' using nothing more than category theory and the Peano axioms).
In particular, relevance logic solves many so-called "informal fallacies", which often occur in legal and political discourse. They are called 'informal' because binary logic can't solve them, that's the only reason.
\[ A \Rightarrow (B \Rightarrow A) \]
Such a fallacy often contains an irrelevant premise. Binary logic thinks the statement is True, because it's a forced binary choice.
But it's the wrong choice. The correct answer is False. It's a fallacy! You can simply compute this with RM3.
Consider the classically valid inference:
The moon is made of green cheese. Therefore, either it is raining in
Ecuador now or it is not.
Let P be the premise that the moon is made of green cheese. Let Q be the premise that it is raining in Ecuador.
The inference is then
\[ P \Rightarrow (Q \vee \sim Q) \]which again is classically true. That's why this is an "informal" fallacy. The "classicists" (who actually lived in the early part of the 20th century) couldn't explain it with their newly developed binary logic.
The statement fails in relevance logic.
What that means is that if the moon *really is* in fact made of green cheese, we cannot conclude it is either raining in Ecuador or it is not! This is sensible. It could be cheesing.
“First, we must be honest about the lies and the abuses that have occurred within these walls,” Trump said
That's next level lying right there. "I am lying" writ LARGE
woke gender ideology
It doesn't mean anything, but that's not stopping the rich people from using it as an excuse to take away your funding
The Sunk Cost fallacy is a type of Relevance fallacy:
"It is often important for businesses to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant costs when analyzing alternatives because erroneously considering irrelevant costs can lead to unsound business decisions."
-- Garrison, Noreen, Brewer (2007)
Managerial Accounting 12th Ed. (p. 578)
Sunk costs are irrelevant costs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevant_cost
The quote brings to mind the idea that using inconsistent or unknown information in logical inference* is invalid. For example, although the statement
\[ p \wedge q \Rightarrow q \]
is true in binary logic, it is actually invalid in more general relevance logics (e.g., RM3) when \( q \) is inconsistent or unknown.
One might call this notion pseudo-relevance; inconsistent (or unknown) is not exactly the same thing as irrelevant; I'd love to see somebody expand on that.
* Strictly speaking, reasoning towards or from an inconsistency is invalid
"What has shaken the industry is DeepSeek's claim that its R1 model was made at a fraction of the cost of its rivals - raising questions about the future of [ignore the rest of this] America's AI dominance and the scale of investments US firms are planning."
Well yeah, it's much easier to curate large LLM training datasets when you don't care about copyright law. Plus a relevance fallacy thrown in for good measure. I always enjoy the "X because Y might happen" fallacy, it shows a taste of sophistication