the law of (v or ~v)

[Dr.Peterson]

No argument has no premisses and particularly a valid argument
That is agaist the definition of an argument (valid argument)

I just did a quick search and found a couple discussions of this idea:

When is an argument without premises valid?

So the question is how do we know if an argument without premises is valid. First of all, how would that go? I mean, what would an argument without premises look like (in terms of propositional lo...

math.stackexchange.com

Can there be an argument without premises?

After a lengthy discussion with WillO here, we can't seem to find a common ground and I am interested in whether there really could be an argument without a single premise. Another question whose

philosophy.stackexchange.com

The second of these contains the comment, "You seem to be strangely passionate about an issue of pure convention, but for all your passion you don't seem to be able to produce a single standard reference that requires the set of premises to be non-empty." What this person is saying is that whether you permit an argument to have an empty set of premises is a matter of convention, and people may well make different choices. This is not something to stamp your feet about and insist they are wrong, wrong, wrong.

Please show us your definition of "argument", and where it comes from. Then argue for or against it civilly, so discussion becomes possible. Just insisting you are right is not helpful.

 

[khansaheb]

Due to language barrier or intrinsic rudeness, I suggest that this thread should be locked out.

 

[chrislav]

I just did a quick search and found a couple discussions of this idea:

When is an argument without premises valid?

So the question is how do we know if an argument without premises is valid. First of all, how would that go? I mean, what would an argument without premises look like (in terms of propositional lo...

math.stackexchange.com

Can there be an argument without premises?

After a lengthy discussion with WillO here, we can't seem to find a common ground and I am interested in whether there really could be an argument without a single premise. Another question whose

philosophy.stackexchange.com

The second of these contains the comment, "You seem to be strangely passionate about an issue of pure convention, but for all your passion you don't seem to be able to produce a single standard reference that requires the set of premises to be non-empty." What this person is saying is that whether you permit an argument to have an empty set of premises is a matter of convention, and people may well make different choices. This is not something to stamp your feet about and insist they are wrong, wrong, wrong.

Please show us your definition of "argument", and where it comes from. Then argue for or against it civilly, so discussion becomes possible. Just insisting you are right is not helpful.

Well in post 6 i produced a definition of the argument that it was taken from the book : schaum's outline series
Theory and problems of LOGIC (page 1)
Also in the same book in page 20 a definition is given of a valid argument
But let us carry on tomorrow
where i will mention other books with those two definitions

 

[Dr.Peterson]

Well in post 6 i produced a definition of the argument that it was taken from the book : schaum's outline series
Theory and problems of LOGIC (page 1)
Also in the same book in page 20 a definition is given of a valid argument

Yes; you said this:

Argument is sequense of statments of which one is itended as a conclusion and the others,the premisses, are intended to prove or at least provide some evidence for the conclusion

I see this in the book:

​

So you copied more or less correctly. And the examples, though not symbolic like those we are discussing, consist of two or three statements.

In response to your post #6, I pointed out that what you had called an argument was just a single statement, so clearly you were not going by that definition when you asked your question!

My question to you, which I don't think you've answered, is, "On what grounds did you say that "v or ~v" is an argument?" It seems to me that your current argument is against the validity of your own question! (Though, on the other hand, I have convinced myself that, contrary to my initial impression, it is an argument! This is getting rather convoluted, isn't it?)

On the other hand, to a mathematician, a sequence can be a single element, and a plural can be used in a way that includes the possibility of a singular, as when we talk about an expression being a sum of terms, without denying that it may be a single term. So the author is not necessarily denying the possibility of a one-statement argument. Have you found any source that explicitly says an argument can't consist of a single statement?

Perhaps the biggest issue at the moment, though, is that you are choosing to totally ignore my links, which I think deserve a reply. Why can't you respond to what others say, and show a willingness to learn?

 

[stapel]

Perhaps the biggest issue at the moment, though, is that you are choosing to totally ignore my links, which I think deserve a reply. Why can't you respond to what others say, and show a willingness to learn?

Message received. Thread closed.