- Wed Oct 30, 2024 1:44 pm
#110247
In the 6th principle it claims that "Any combination of an arrow and double-not arrow in succession will yield an inference" and it uses the example "A B C" to prove this point with its inference being "A C". This makes complete sense to me.
To test the theory that any combination of an arrow and double-not arrow will yield an inference I wrote out an alternative to the example statement as "A B C" and the inference, "C A", can't be true. For example there's one possibility that "C D A"
To me this disproves that "Any combination of an arrow and double-not arrow in succession will yield an inference".
Is there something I'm missing here?
To test the theory that any combination of an arrow and double-not arrow will yield an inference I wrote out an alternative to the example statement as "A B C" and the inference, "C A", can't be true. For example there's one possibility that "C D A"
To me this disproves that "Any combination of an arrow and double-not arrow in succession will yield an inference".
Is there something I'm missing here?