URGENT WARNING: Spam emails claiming to be Fascipedia are FRAUDULENT. We do NOT have mailing lists, send newsletters, or solicit funds ...ever. Report these scams to us immediately at admin@fascipedia.org.
Talk:Affine logic: Difference between revisions
Deleted User (talk | contribs) |
Deleted User (talk | contribs) |
||
| 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, | 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;">πΌ</span><span style="background:#000033; color:white; padding:1px;">π§</span><span style="background:#000055; color:white; padding:1px;">π</span><span style="background:#000088; color:white; padding:1px;">π</span>]][[User talk:Archangel|<span style="background:#0000aa; color:white; padding:1px;">π</span><span style="background:#0000bb; color:white; padding:1px;">π£</span><span style="background:#0000cc; color:white; padding:1px;">π</span><span style="background:#0000ee; color:white; padding:1px;">π</span><span style="background:#0000ff; color:white; padding:1px;">π‘</span>]]''' 23:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 14:07, 17 December 2022
This is why I don't like cuts-and-pastes from Wi***edia -- πΌπ§ππππ£πππ‘ 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 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. πΌπ§ππππ£πππ‘ 23:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)