Forget my grammar for sec. this aint English course. Well, you see how ppl write in short hand and stuff online dont ya. It is not Logic Course either, but since we are trying to make sense of the story here, logic is of the essence.
Moving on. Pal, it was never about a partuclar proof, or your particular proof. I did make some direct statements about what you say. Otherwise, it for everyone in general. So no, I didnt say you dont understand logic. But I do point out some inconsistencies.
You mistake my so called "Proofs" in the lesson as to summarize yours. Not at all. I just make them up, and relating it a bit to the story, not 100%, but I guess that is no good. I should just use something unrelated, to show when an argument is good, which is also logically consistent. You are right, some statements in the proof aint required, which is ok, so long as they dont contradict each other.
So what strike me most is when you say this: "However, I wouldn't call it a logical flaw if I simply failed to prove my argument to you". Pal, when you fail to prove, IT IS because you made a logical error, or you got your facts wrong, leading to a wrong conclusion. Did you get some fact wrong? Now, I dont care whether you did anything so far ok.
My goal, as restating for the 5th, maybe, and the last time: is to provide the folks who have issue with Ace getting away the reason why. Which I did; you, Skymir did; and someone else did. So why can't you guys let this go? But your problem is to stress how KILLLING ACE is the ONLY objective. If you dont mean to say that, then fine! Else, I cant help you without insulting you! Sorry.
See! I didnt have to insult you. But here you are making this kinda statement: "logic: A reasonable conclusion drawn upon known facts" In English, this sounds great! But why not try looking up the dictionary for a defition. You know forget that, if you know logic, you would rather say: logic - the connection among a set of statements, if taken to be true, will make the conclusion true. Notice, logic doesnt require known facts at all! SEE! this is why I recommend a logic course, whatever your major of study is. But be ready to struggle a bit!
Here is another random example:
ONLY man has wings.
IF monkey has wings.
Then monkey is man. [Notice this is a sound argument, which hardly rely on known facts at all.]
Man can walk.
Monkey can walk.
Then, Monkey is man [Bad argument, although the statements are true. you know its bad because the conclusion is false. So what is the logical flaw? If you claim you know logic, then I dont have to explain.]
Last edited by chuckiechuck; 01-31-2010 at 01:48 AM.
Killing time while waiting for the next chapter. OnePiece, that is.