On 08/02/2014 03:11 AM, Chris Cain wrote:
However, by not stating what it is you have provided "strong evidence" for,
Why would I need to? It is what you were arguing against: "You will notice it uses the word 'assertion' in a way that is incompatible with your claim that the "assert definition" rules out such an usage."
I think it should be clear from the context, no? Am I missing something?
what does that leave me to do?
You can say that you still disagree but are in no position to argue further and we'll put aside the discussion. Mind you, I don't actually gain anything by convincing you, the investments have already been immense, and it would be a lot harder now since I appear to have insulted you, for which I want to express an apology.
I think the only reasonable, logical thing to do when you state a fact to a computer program is that it accepts it as a fact.
Indeed. Note that actually we have defined an assertion to be a particular kind of statement of a fact _or belief_, ...
So the definition of assertion very much clarifies exactly the behavior described of assert.
hence this conclusion is reached by a non-exhaustive case analysis on what kind of thing the assertion actually describes.
Contradictory STATEMENTS makes perfect sense.
Yes, without further qualification, two statements may contradict each other. However, if we are e.g. talking about two statements that do not contradict each other, it would not make sense to claim them to be contradictory. There are many other qualifications that will imply that two statements do not contradict each other. The mere fact that we have two classes of STATEMENTS does not allow us to conclude that it makes sense to assume that their instances may be contradictory.
Since assertions are
The same reservations as above apply.
STATEMENTS of facts.
A statement of FACT is a statement that expresses a fact. I.e. there is an existing fact, and the statement expresses this fact. There is a difference between a fact and a statement of that fact, but if two statements of fact contradict each other, you are still left with two contradictory facts.
your entire argument is broken because you've used strawman.
It is not a straw man even when assuming I actually claimed that you said contradictory facts make sense and then argued against that alternative claim because this claim you appear to think I argued against is an immediate consequence of the claim you made and which I wanted to refute.
