Talk:Affine logic - Revision history

Deleted User: /* This is why I don't like cuts-and-pastes from Wi***edia -- 𝘼𝙧𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙡 23:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC) */

2022-12-17T23:07:42Z

This is why I don't like cuts-and-pastes from Wi***edia -- 𝘼𝙧𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙡 23:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:07, 17 December 2022
Line 3:		Line 3:
	There is no mention of Russells paradox, why?		There is no mention of Russells paradox, why?

	Because it came from Wi***edia and nobody there knows fuck-all about logic, thats why. They are all just tards who copy things from textbooks without actually understanding it. Affine logic is an excellent tool, but despite its strong association with philosophy, it is not the only tool in the philosopher's toolbelt, nor is it even the best tool in certain circumstances. Philosophy is the love of wisdom, and in pursuit of wisdom, some ideas simply defy rational, logical investigation. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's says Russell's Paradox does not arise under a paraconsistent logic without contraction. However, ~~I remember reading somewhere that~~ just removing contraction is enough to avoid the paradox, thus affine logic (linear logic with weakening) should suffice. Don't worry, I know you're clueless, I'll fix it. '''[[User:Archangel\|<span style="background:#000000; color:white; padding:1px;">𝘼</span><span style="background:#000033; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙧</span><span style="background:#000055; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙘</span><span style="background:#000088; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙝</span>]][[User talk:Archangel\|<span style="background:#0000aa; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙖</span><span style="background:#0000bb; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙣</span><span style="background:#0000cc; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙜</span><span style="background:#0000ee; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙚</span><span style="background:#0000ff; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙡</span>]]''' 23:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)		Because it came from Wi***edia and nobody there knows fuck-all about logic, thats why. They are all just tards who copy things from textbooks without actually understanding it. Affine logic is an excellent tool, but despite its strong association with philosophy, it is not the only tool in the philosopher's toolbelt, nor is it even the best tool in certain circumstances. Philosophy is the love of wisdom, and in pursuit of wisdom, some ideas simply defy rational, logical investigation. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's says Russell's Paradox does not arise under a paraconsistent logic without contraction. However, just removing contraction is enough to avoid the paradox, thus affine logic (linear logic with weakening) should suffice. Don't worry, I know you're clueless, I'll fix it. '''[[User:Archangel\|<span style="background:#000000; color:white; padding:1px;">𝘼</span><span style="background:#000033; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙧</span><span style="background:#000055; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙘</span><span style="background:#000088; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙝</span>]][[User talk:Archangel\|<span style="background:#0000aa; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙖</span><span style="background:#0000bb; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙣</span><span style="background:#0000cc; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙜</span><span style="background:#0000ee; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙚</span><span style="background:#0000ff; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙡</span>]]''' 23:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Deleted User: /* This is why I don't like cuts-and-pastes from Wi***edia -- 𝘼𝙧𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙡 23:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC) */

2022-12-17T23:06:36Z

This is why I don't like cuts-and-pastes from Wi***edia -- 𝘼𝙧𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙡 23:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:06, 17 December 2022
Line 3:		Line 3:
	There is no mention of Russells paradox, why?		There is no mention of Russells paradox, why?

	Because it came from Wi***edia and nobody there knows fuck-all about logic, thats why. They are all just tards who copy things from textbooks without actually understanding it. Affine logic is an excellent tool, but despite its strong association with philosophy, it is not the only tool in the philosopher's toolbelt, nor is it even the best tool in certain circumstances. Philosophy is the love of wisdom, and in pursuit of wisdom, some ideas simply defy rational, logical investigation. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's says Russell's Paradox does not arise under a paraconsistent logic without contraction ~~(see here )~~. However, I remember reading somewhere that just removing contraction is enough to avoid the paradox, thus affine logic (linear logic with weakening) should suffice. Don't worry, I know you're clueless, I'll fix it. '''[[User:Archangel\|<span style="background:#000000; color:white; padding:1px;">𝘼</span><span style="background:#000033; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙧</span><span style="background:#000055; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙘</span><span style="background:#000088; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙝</span>]][[User talk:Archangel\|<span style="background:#0000aa; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙖</span><span style="background:#0000bb; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙣</span><span style="background:#0000cc; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙜</span><span style="background:#0000ee; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙚</span><span style="background:#0000ff; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙡</span>]]''' 23:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)		Because it came from Wi***edia and nobody there knows fuck-all about logic, thats why. They are all just tards who copy things from textbooks without actually understanding it. Affine logic is an excellent tool, but despite its strong association with philosophy, it is not the only tool in the philosopher's toolbelt, nor is it even the best tool in certain circumstances. Philosophy is the love of wisdom, and in pursuit of wisdom, some ideas simply defy rational, logical investigation. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's says Russell's Paradox does not arise under a paraconsistent logic without contraction. However, I remember reading somewhere that just removing contraction is enough to avoid the paradox, thus affine logic (linear logic with weakening) should suffice. Don't worry, I know you're clueless, I'll fix it. '''[[User:Archangel\|<span style="background:#000000; color:white; padding:1px;">𝘼</span><span style="background:#000033; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙧</span><span style="background:#000055; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙘</span><span style="background:#000088; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙝</span>]][[User talk:Archangel\|<span style="background:#0000aa; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙖</span><span style="background:#0000bb; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙣</span><span style="background:#0000cc; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙜</span><span style="background:#0000ee; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙚</span><span style="background:#0000ff; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙡</span>]]''' 23:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Deleted User: /* This is why I don't like cuts-and-pastes from Wi***edia -- 𝘼𝙧𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙡 23:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC) */

2022-12-17T23:05:21Z

This is why I don't like cuts-and-pastes from Wi***edia -- 𝘼𝙧𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙡 23:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:05, 17 December 2022
Line 3:		Line 3:
	There is no mention of Russells paradox, why?		There is no mention of Russells paradox, why?

	Because it came from Wi***edia and nobody there knows fuck-all about logic, thats why. They are all just ~~tarfs~~ who copy things from textbooks without actually understanding it. Affine logic is an excellent tool, but despite its strong association with philosophy, it is not the only tool in the philosopher's toolbelt, nor is it even the best tool in certain circumstances. Philosophy is the love of wisdom, and in pursuit of wisdom, some ideas simply defy rational, logical investigation. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's says Russell's Paradox does not arise under a paraconsistent logic without contraction (see here ). However, I remember reading somewhere that just removing contraction is enough to avoid the paradox, thus affine logic (linear logic with weakening) should suffice. Don't worry, I know you're clueless, I'll fix it. '''[[User:Archangel\|<span style="background:#000000; color:white; padding:1px;">𝘼</span><span style="background:#000033; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙧</span><span style="background:#000055; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙘</span><span style="background:#000088; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙝</span>]][[User talk:Archangel\|<span style="background:#0000aa; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙖</span><span style="background:#0000bb; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙣</span><span style="background:#0000cc; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙜</span><span style="background:#0000ee; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙚</span><span style="background:#0000ff; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙡</span>]]''' 23:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)		Because it came from Wi***edia and nobody there knows fuck-all about logic, thats why. They are all just tards who copy things from textbooks without actually understanding it. Affine logic is an excellent tool, but despite its strong association with philosophy, it is not the only tool in the philosopher's toolbelt, nor is it even the best tool in certain circumstances. Philosophy is the love of wisdom, and in pursuit of wisdom, some ideas simply defy rational, logical investigation. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's says Russell's Paradox does not arise under a paraconsistent logic without contraction (see here ). However, I remember reading somewhere that just removing contraction is enough to avoid the paradox, thus affine logic (linear logic with weakening) should suffice. Don't worry, I know you're clueless, I'll fix it. '''[[User:Archangel\|<span style="background:#000000; color:white; padding:1px;">𝘼</span><span style="background:#000033; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙧</span><span style="background:#000055; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙘</span><span style="background:#000088; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙝</span>]][[User talk:Archangel\|<span style="background:#0000aa; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙖</span><span style="background:#0000bb; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙣</span><span style="background:#0000cc; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙜</span><span style="background:#0000ee; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙚</span><span style="background:#0000ff; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙡</span>]]''' 23:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Deleted User: /* This is why I don't like cuts-and-pastes from Wi***edia -- 𝘼𝙧𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙡 23:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC) */

2022-12-17T23:04:37Z

This is why I don't like cuts-and-pastes from Wi***edia -- 𝘼𝙧𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙡 23:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:04, 17 December 2022
Line 2:		Line 2:

	There is no mention of Russells paradox, why?		There is no mention of Russells paradox, why?

	Because it came from Wi***edia and nobody there knows fuck-all about logic, thats why. They are all just tarfs who copy things from textbooks without actually understanding it. Affine logic is an excellent tool, but despite its strong association with philosophy, it is not the only tool in the philosopher's toolbelt, nor is it even the best tool in certain circumstances. Philosophy is the love of wisdom, and in pursuit of wisdom, some ideas simply defy rational, logical investigation. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's says Russell's Paradox does not arise under a paraconsistent logic without contraction (see here ). However, I remember reading somewhere that just removing contraction is enough to avoid the paradox, thus affine logic (linear logic with weakening) should suffice. Don't worry, I know you're clueless, I'll fix it. '''[[User:Archangel\|<span style="background:#000000; color:white; padding:1px;">𝘼</span><span style="background:#000033; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙧</span><span style="background:#000055; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙘</span><span style="background:#000088; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙝</span>]][[User talk:Archangel\|<span style="background:#0000aa; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙖</span><span style="background:#0000bb; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙣</span><span style="background:#0000cc; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙜</span><span style="background:#0000ee; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙚</span><span style="background:#0000ff; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙡</span>]]''' 23:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)		Because it came from Wi***edia and nobody there knows fuck-all about logic, thats why. They are all just tarfs who copy things from textbooks without actually understanding it. Affine logic is an excellent tool, but despite its strong association with philosophy, it is not the only tool in the philosopher's toolbelt, nor is it even the best tool in certain circumstances. Philosophy is the love of wisdom, and in pursuit of wisdom, some ideas simply defy rational, logical investigation. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's says Russell's Paradox does not arise under a paraconsistent logic without contraction (see here ). However, I remember reading somewhere that just removing contraction is enough to avoid the paradox, thus affine logic (linear logic with weakening) should suffice. Don't worry, I know you're clueless, I'll fix it. '''[[User:Archangel\|<span style="background:#000000; color:white; padding:1px;">𝘼</span><span style="background:#000033; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙧</span><span style="background:#000055; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙘</span><span style="background:#000088; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙝</span>]][[User talk:Archangel\|<span style="background:#0000aa; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙖</span><span style="background:#0000bb; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙣</span><span style="background:#0000cc; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙜</span><span style="background:#0000ee; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙚</span><span style="background:#0000ff; color:white; padding:1px;">𝙡</span>]]''' 23:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Deleted User: /* This is why I don't like cuts-and-pastes from Wi***edia -- ~~~~ */ new section

2022-12-17T23:03:59Z

This is why I don't like cuts-and-pastes from Wi***edia -- ~~~~: new section

New page

== This is why I don't like cuts-and-pastes from [[Wi***edia]] -- '''[[User:Archangel|𝘼𝙧𝙘𝙝]][[User talk:Archangel|𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙡]]''' 23:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC) ==

There is no mention of Russells paradox, why?
Because it came from Wi***edia and nobody there knows fuck-all about logic, thats why. They are all just tarfs who copy things from textbooks without actually understanding it. Affine logic is an excellent tool, but despite its strong association with philosophy, it is not the only tool in the philosopher's toolbelt, nor is it even the best tool in certain circumstances. Philosophy is the love of wisdom, and in pursuit of wisdom, some ideas simply defy rational, logical investigation. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's says Russell's Paradox does not arise under a paraconsistent logic without contraction (see here ). However, I remember reading somewhere that just removing contraction is enough to avoid the paradox, thus affine logic (linear logic with weakening) should suffice. Don't worry, I know you're clueless, I'll fix it. '''[[User:Archangel|𝘼𝙧𝙘𝙝]][[User talk:Archangel|𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙡]]''' 23:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)