Does logic fail us?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Prime, May 12, 2006.

  1. Prime Registered Member

    Messages:
    7
    Hi All,

    I was having a discussion with someone who believes she cannot rely on logic for the reason that apparently, 1+1 can be disproved to be 2 (or something to that effect).

    I was wondering if anybody could elaborate on this?

    Prime.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dravyga ... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    33
    1+1 = 11 which equals 3 in binary.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaleSpam TANSTAAFL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,723
    Hi Prime, welcome to SciForums,

    There are a variety of algebraic "proofs" that show that 1+1 != 2. All of the ones that I have seen divide by zero at some point. It's not that logic has failed, it's just that you are doing a mathematical operation that is not defined.

    Ask your friend for the proof. If you see at some step that they have something like a/(b+c) then look and see if b=c. If so you can point out the error to your friend immediately.

    -Dale
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tom2 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    726
    As others have said, ask her to show her work. It will certainly be the case that she has made a mistake somewhere. If anything it should serve to convince her that she cannot rely on illogic.

    That would be a/(b-c), but I'm sure you know that.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2006
  8. DaleSpam TANSTAAFL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,723
    Oops.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Quite right, how embarassing.

    -Dale
     
  9. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    Yeah, it's an interpretation trick. It boils down to:

    1x + 1 = 2

    and the value of x is > or < 1. For example, if we give x a value of 3 then:

    3 + 1 != 2

    or more specifically:

    4 != 2

    Logic is working just fine.
     
  10. CANGAS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,612
    She will not tell you ?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Why are you asking a third ( and fourth and fifth.... ) party?

    I think maybe your friend likes to play tricks on you and especially try to get you into trouble with strangers.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    If mathematics & logic had serious flaws, I would worry about bridges falling down, airplanes crashing, accounting programs making mistakes, et cetrera.

    Be serious! Does your friend have even a clue about all the devices that would not work if mathematics & logic were flawed?
     
  12. CANGAS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,612
    Including these computers.
     
  13. Zephyr Humans are ONE Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,371
    Windows is a bad example.

    And there are limits to logic, as Gödel pointed out.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2006
  14. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    The limits due to the Goedel proof are a far cry from any claim that logic is flawed or in some sense not usable for practical purposes.
     
  15. Prime Registered Member

    Messages:
    7
    OK! Thanks for all the replies. Just to be clear and to give some context; she is not my friend. I met her that day and I mentioned some things to do with her religion and why I don't / can't agree. She took me to the pub and we had a 2 hour "discussion"; the logic issue is one of the items that I thought about afterwards.

    With regards to Godel's Proof (I don't have a mathematical background) but from what I understand of it; in principal no system of logic can ever capture the whole of the truth; I agree with Dinosaur that it's a far cry from saying logic is flawed.

    Prime.
     
  16. Zephyr Humans are ONE Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,371
    Of course. Limits don't remove logic's usefulness. Nonetheless I think it's wise to recognise those limits

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Arkantos Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    142
    I don't know if I remember, but does Godel have anything to do with something lik this?

    "this sentence is false in this logical system"
     
  18. Zephyr Humans are ONE Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,371
    I think so ... either you can prove the sentence true or false - either of which is a contradiction; or you can't do either, so your system is incomplete. Incompleteness is the lesser evil.
     
  19. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    I think goedel proved that certain logical systems are either incomplete or inconsistent.

    Incomplete meaning that there had to be one valid theorem (or statement) that could not be proven. Such a theorem (or statment) could be added to the system as an axiom, enlarging the scope fo the system & allowing for other valid but unprovable statemenst/theorems.

    The alternative to incompleteness was inconsistency, which does not seem like a plausible or desireable alternative.

    His proof applied to non trivial systems. I beleve that the actual proof is very difficult to understand, although dumbed down versions provide the basic concept. It is a reducto ad absurdem proof.

    Goedel's proof was the final result of a project started by Gauss & Riemann to prove the consistency of the basic axioms of mathematical logic. The byproducts of that project were the geometry of curved spaces, Principia Mathematics (by Russel), and all sorts of other wonderful results.
     
  20. funkstar ratsknuf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,390
    The proof isn't actually that difficult, but one has to be very particular with which level of interpretation is used where.
     
  21. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    FunkStar: I have read many descriptions of Goedel’s proof which were easy to understand and which provided the general concept of the proof. When I actually read a serious version of the proof, it seemed very difficult.
    Could you suggest a site with a formal version of the proof that is not too difficult? I did not have the patience to follow the proofs at the following sites.The above are typical of the level of formal proofs I have encountered.
     

Share This Page