@user21820 I reread some of the thread where you said you deleted a comment. As a rule of inference, it gets called disjunction elimination. This: CCprCCqrCApqr is like saying we have two subproofs, then assume a disjunction which gets eliminated. This: CCprCApqCCqrr, is like saying we have a subproof, a disjunction, another subproof and then infer the common conclusion. THIS: CApqCCprCCqrr is like saying we have a disjunction, two subproofs with a common conclusion...
@user21820 And then a common conclusion gets inferred. That sounds like an elimination in some sense like a conjunction elimination, or a conditional elimination. Maybe though, CCprCApqCCqrr has the most interesting aspect? I mean, if we have a disjunction first, then we need to do two subproofs, which sounds like a bit of work. This: CCprCCqrCApqr sounds like we put in the effort to produce to subproofs and we found a common consequent.
@user21820 But this: CCprCApqCCqrr sounds like we had some subproof which we didn't know what to do with, found a disjunction as a hint that a leading result might exist, and then found some other subproof which showed the hint to put us on the right track.
To everyone else, see meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/2831. After I have wasted many days attempting to explain some things in logic to him, I'm forced to conclude that he is at best willfully misguided and at worst a troll. It seems he has a rudimentary grasp of basic propositional logic and some non-classical logics, but he is totally incompetent in proof theory, model theory, computability theory and programming, and if he assumes you are wrong he will never admit otherwise.
I'm not particularly happy with this broad and open-seeming ("Feel free to join..." from the description) chat room having been made a gallery. This does not, in particular, allow new users to ask questions about logic here.
If you don't want to see the posts of specific users, try the ignore user functionality.
I'm making this room public so that anyone can feel free to join again.
room mode changed to Public: anyone may enter and talk
@arjafi: I was the creator of this room, and I do not relish the possibility that Doug will hijack this to promote his logically erroneous viewpoints.
I found no way to prevent specific users from being able to participate, so I thought I had no choice but to selectively allow people interested in learning logic to join, which is why I added a couple of owners so that they can give whomever they like write access.
@user21820 Doug has made three posts, each seemingly on topic, in this room. Again, if you don't want to hear from a user, simple ignore them.
@user21820 And what do you expect the work-flow for this is? Go to the main math chatroom and hope one of the owners is around to request write access here? And where would someone find this out? That doesn't seem like it would create a very open room.
@arjafi: Actually he came here only after I stopped responding to him in another chat room, after troll-like comments of his. Also, his posts are not on-topic; I have no idea what comment he is talking about that I said I deleted...
As for the work-flow, I know it's terrible to have it a gallery, but I rather have a restricted access than one that allows crackpots.
We shall see.
I'm not going to fight with your unilateral decision to make this chat-room unrestricted, although as the owner who even bothered to create the room, I do feel you should not have intervened so quickly; before I created the chat-room it wasn't even there, so I'm not making it worse than before.
@arjafi: But as I said, we shall see. I hope you understand that my actions were due to my personal concern for logical reasoning and hence I'm very hard-handed on junk.
@arjafi: As I said, I know about that feature, but I do not agree that it is sufficient. It is insufficient for exactly the same reason that we downvote/delete crank posts and not just ignore.
As a room owner I believe you also have the ability to "kick-mute" users, which would be a temporary measure. However essentially closing this room at the first sight of something you don't like is a little heavy-handed, IMHO.
(I'll have to look into the conversation in the other room when I have a bit more time and see what transpired.)
I don't have the ability to kick-mute users, and I would be exceedingly glad to be able to do so. I only chose my heavy-handed approach after not finding that option.
Possible Duplicate:
Make it possible to revoke write access to public chat rooms
So many times in chat rooms I have noticed some users cross their limits, start abusing and cross their limits. And ultimately causing an affray. Today only I saw one user challenging me to come his own cr...
And no doubt you'll find me rude in the other chat-room, because I had spent days trying to teach Doug and all I got was him telling me that I was wrong, even after I had proven explicitly otherwise. I sometimes wonder if I should have ignored him from the beginning, or whether I was too rude, but there's a limit to my patience..
@user21820 I think that chat-moderation underwent a bit of an overhaul fairly recently. The below links to a guide for chat moderation for room owners, which does mention kick-mute as a possibility.
What tools are available to room owners?
Room owners are users that have some elevated permissions in a chatroom. Typically, they will be the first line of defense when it comes to inappropriate content or behavior in a room. Users will look to the room owners to guide the room. The room owners...
@arjafi: Thanks for that. I did not realize I had to click on the user icon to see that option. Anyway since there is a negative consequence if it happens too many times, I won't do it unless it gets really bad.
Possible Duplicate:
Make it possible to revoke write access to public chat rooms
So many times in chat rooms I have noticed some users cross their limits, start abusing and cross their limits. And ultimately causing an affray. Today only I saw one user challenging me to come his own cr...
