Truly impressive how you were able to give a lecture on this essay and somehow make it as simple as the beginning of his publication “the Phil of logical atomism.” Amazing!
thank you so much profesor from the ones like me who dont have to chance to go to your university and your country. i am watching you from China, i am grateful to you for your lectures you share in RU-vid.
i know Im randomly asking but does someone know a method to log back into an instagram account..? I stupidly lost the account password. I would appreciate any assistance you can offer me!
@Jackson Cayson Thanks so much for your reply. I got to the site through google and im in the hacking process atm. Looks like it's gonna take a while so I will get back to you later with my results.
well i think C(nothing) means: "(∀x)¬(x is awesome)"; the student has turned you in a totally wrong way of giving a description of the quantifier: "(∀x)¬¬(x is awesome)" is completely another thing and it's equivalent to the first assertion.
Here's the thing, the prof. had to lay down a proposition 'Nothing is not awesome', not 'C(nothing)' by itself which would be exactly what you wrote. In Russel's terminology " 'C(nothing)'means " 'C(nothing) is always false' is always true". And if we abstract from defining 'nothing' by itself, we merely use the language of logic which will even out two negations into one positive proposition. Hope I was clear. محمد صدرا منعمی نودهی
