Replies

A contradiction is not necessarily nonsense. For most purposes, you can take it as such. To many computer scientists a contradiction is an unavoidable hole in a program from which you don't return, but which is ineradicable in the otherwise acceptable, shippable code. For many practical mathematicians, it is an indication that the formal domain of discourse is inadequate, and can therefore be ragarded as a useful indicator of error, like a canary in a coal mine. How can something that's entirely nonsense be a useful indicator?

Are you kidding? A contradiction is nonsense. It is useful in code or arguement or whatever because it tells you that something wrong. A contradiction cannot make sense. That's why it is called contradiction.

Your statements are contradictory without appealing to any outside source by the way I outlined it. You are using the term in contradictory ways. Once again, 'A' cannot be both equivalent to 'B' and not equivalent to 'B'. "Pharisees" cannot be both equivelent to Jews and to just some subset, or tribe, of Jews (i.e. NOT equivalent to Jews).

You could save me a lot of typing by reading my posts the first time round.

Are you kidding? A contradiction is nonsense. It is useful in code or arguement or whatever because it tells you that something wrong. A contradiction cannot make sense. That's why it is called contradiction.

You have a surface familiarity with this issue you are entirely too sure of. There are many, many applications in the real world that are not wrong or mistaken, that nonetheless, cannot resolve because, stated as formal math instead of programs (which is doable if their grammars are chomsky-normal), they are contradictions, in that an attempt to return their truth values to the operating program result in endless loop hangups. A contradiction does not return a consistent truth value--that is why it is a contradiction. Whether it makes sense or not depends on what you are doing, and what your domain of discourse is. Contradictions occur when a domain of discourse which can be rendered as a venn diagram whose sets contain all the elements under discussion contains elements whose truth value is different for different, supposedly valid operators in the domain. Nothing forces you to be confined to said domain. If you are outside the domain, contradictions can have useful meaning, like "this domain is invalid" for example.

You could save me a lot of typing by reading my posts the first time round.

I have no trouble reading your irrelevant point over and over.