HooversKid

@Hooverskid

New Conservative Youtuber:

Sioux Falls, SD

Joined December 2023

2.4K Following

3.6K Followers

244 Posts

Pinned Tweet

HooversKid @Hooverskid

3 months ago

Islam: The Snake Conservatives Have Let Into The Garden https://t.co/2h4QH0FQbe via @YouTube My newest video, a share would be appreciated.

0

0

0

0

36

Hooverskid retweeted

Steven Stegeman

@StevenAStegeman

3 months ago

@itsdespues Thanks, friend! 🤗 I am still pinching myself that the #RoR is on the rankings list around Ludwig Wittgenstein's CLASSIC, "The Blue and Brown Books", which I was assigned to study in one of my philosophy classes ... ... 🌚 many 🌛 moons 🌜 ago 🌝 ... ... as an UNDERGRAD! 😳

StevenAStegeman's tweet photo. @itsdespues Thanks, friend! 🤗 I am still pinching myself that the #RoR is on the rankings list around Ludwig Wittgenstein's CLASSIC, "The Blue and Brown Books", which I was assigned to study in one of my philosophy classes ...
... 🌚 many 🌛 moons 🌜 ago 🌝 ...
... as an UNDERGRAD! 😳 https://t.co/caer52p2Am

1

10

3

0

199

Hooverskid retweeted

Steven Stegeman

@StevenAStegeman

3 months ago

Peripheral #RoR news here... In the front matter of the RoR, I mention being invited to do a review by Monumenta Serica for a book that overlaps my areas of academic strength: Eastern thought and philosophical logic. 👨‍🏫 Well, it just recently dropped: https://t.co/xMRsnFgqAl

0

7

3

2

1K

HooversKid @Hooverskid

3 months ago

@StevenAStegeman Great book

1

4

1

0

70

HooversKid @Hooverskid

4 months ago

Would Jesus Be Democrat or Republican? The Answer Isn’t What You Think https://t.co/33Fwq8NhYJ via @YouTube

0

0

0

0

100

Hooverskid retweeted

Steven Stegeman

@StevenAStegeman

4 months ago

With the launch 🚀 of the RoR 📖 on Amazon ONE WEEK away, 'tis time for a reveal... 😲🔎 The central rule of inference, modus ponens, is, we are told, "primitive", not derived. That is a convenient LIE. Indeed, MP's proof in natural deduction is obvious! Here it is: 1. P ⊃ Q 2. P ∴ Q ------------------- 3. ~P ∨ Q DC 1 4. Q DS 3,2 Simple as that: TWO STEPS! 🪄 (Re the justifications... 👨‍🏫 DC = Disjunctive Conditional in the RoR, a typical traditional designation of which is Material Implication (MI) DS = Disjunctive Syllogism) In the attached image files, 👇 you can witness ChatGPT go from still not being able to figure this proof 👆 out (Response 1) to FINALLY detecting what is up, putting it together, and presenting the proof (Response 2)! In light of this, much truer in the traditional context would be that material implication (disjunctive conditional in the RoR) be taken as "primitive", though that is not really true, either, given the presence of the subproof methods of conditional and indirect proof, which, mind you, are speciously affirmed by that aforementioned LIE that modus ponens is "primitive" because when system closure is precluded, incorporating external methods is acceptable. Indeed, the rule of inference of material implication is traditionally taken to be derived, and, to wit, AI 🤖 will give you proofs in natural deduction for it using conditional/indirect subproofs (that is, ironically to have to say, if it gives you a proof at all 🤪). Now, it is notable that a proof in natural deduction for modus ponens can also be done, albeit slightly less elegantly, with, in order: (the horseshoe form of) the contrapositive theorems, commutation, and modus tollens. Of course, those three patterns of inference are all derived, too. For example, the proof for the contrapositive theorems requires (two iterations of) the disjunctive conditional and commutation. Point being, it would make more sense if it were demonstrated within natural deduction that all of them were part of a closed set of logically interconnected, mutually implied fundamental patterns of inference, but that takes a ton of work, which, moreover, the methods of conditional proof stubbornly stand in the way of (because those methods – along with the ability to (arbitrarily) declare a rule of inference "primitive" – seem to render such work unnecessary). THAT... WORK... HAS... BEEN... DONE,... and it is presented in the RoR, and so that first-ever closed system of natural deduction that has been kept under lock and key 🔐 for over three years now is one week away from being unveiled! ✊️🤯👍

StevenAStegeman's tweet photo. With the launch 🚀 of the RoR 📖 on Amazon ONE WEEK away, 'tis time for a reveal... 😲🔎

The central rule of inference, modus ponens, is, we are told, "primitive", not derived. That is a convenient LIE. Indeed, MP's proof in natural deduction is obvious! Here it is:

1. P ⊃ Q
2. P ∴ Q
-------------------
3. ~P ∨ Q DC 1
4. Q DS 3,2

Simple as that: TWO STEPS! 🪄

(Re the justifications... 👨‍🏫

DC = Disjunctive Conditional in the RoR, a typical traditional designation of which is Material Implication (MI)

DS = Disjunctive Syllogism)

In the attached image files, 👇 you can witness ChatGPT go from still not being able to figure this proof 👆 out (Response 1) to FINALLY detecting what is up, putting it together, and presenting the proof (Response 2)!

In light of this, much truer in the traditional context would be that material implication (disjunctive conditional in the RoR) be taken as "primitive", though that is not really true, either, given the presence of the subproof methods of conditional and indirect proof, which, mind you, are speciously affirmed by that aforementioned LIE that modus ponens is "primitive" because when system closure is precluded, incorporating external methods is acceptable.

Indeed, the rule of inference of material implication is traditionally taken to be derived, and, to wit, AI 🤖 will give you proofs in natural deduction for it using conditional/indirect subproofs (that is, ironically to have to say, if it gives you a proof at all 🤪).

Now, it is notable that a proof in natural deduction for modus ponens can also be done, albeit slightly less elegantly, with, in order: (the horseshoe form of) the contrapositive theorems, commutation, and modus tollens. Of course, those three patterns of inference are all derived, too. For example, the proof for the contrapositive theorems requires (two iterations of) the disjunctive conditional and commutation.

Point being, it would make more sense if it were demonstrated within natural deduction that all of them were part of a closed set of logically interconnected, mutually implied fundamental patterns of inference, but that takes a ton of work, which, moreover, the methods of conditional proof stubbornly stand in the way of (because those methods – along with the ability to (arbitrarily) declare a rule of inference "primitive" – seem to render such work unnecessary).

THAT... WORK... HAS... BEEN... DONE,... and it is presented in the RoR, and so that first-ever closed system of natural deduction that has been kept under lock and key 🔐 for over three years now is one week away from being unveiled!

✊️🤯👍

StevenAStegeman's tweet photo. With the launch 🚀 of the RoR 📖 on Amazon ONE WEEK away, 'tis time for a reveal... 😲🔎

The central rule of inference, modus ponens, is, we are told, "primitive", not derived. That is a convenient LIE. Indeed, MP's proof in natural deduction is obvious! Here it is:

1. P ⊃ Q
2. P ∴ Q
-------------------
3. ~P ∨ Q DC 1
4. Q DS 3,2

Simple as that: TWO STEPS! 🪄

(Re the justifications... 👨‍🏫

DC = Disjunctive Conditional in the RoR, a typical traditional designation of which is Material Implication (MI)

DS = Disjunctive Syllogism)

In the attached image files, 👇 you can witness ChatGPT go from still not being able to figure this proof 👆 out (Response 1) to FINALLY detecting what is up, putting it together, and presenting the proof (Response 2)!

In light of this, much truer in the traditional context would be that material implication (disjunctive conditional in the RoR) be taken as "primitive", though that is not really true, either, given the presence of the subproof methods of conditional and indirect proof, which, mind you, are speciously affirmed by that aforementioned LIE that modus ponens is "primitive" because when system closure is precluded, incorporating external methods is acceptable.

Indeed, the rule of inference of material implication is traditionally taken to be derived, and, to wit, AI 🤖 will give you proofs in natural deduction for it using conditional/indirect subproofs (that is, ironically to have to say, if it gives you a proof at all 🤪).

Now, it is notable that a proof in natural deduction for modus ponens can also be done, albeit slightly less elegantly, with, in order: (the horseshoe form of) the contrapositive theorems, commutation, and modus tollens. Of course, those three patterns of inference are all derived, too. For example, the proof for the contrapositive theorems requires (two iterations of) the disjunctive conditional and commutation.

Point being, it would make more sense if it were demonstrated within natural deduction that all of them were part of a closed set of logically interconnected, mutually implied fundamental patterns of inference, but that takes a ton of work, which, moreover, the methods of conditional proof stubbornly stand in the way of (because those methods – along with the ability to (arbitrarily) declare a rule of inference "primitive" – seem to render such work unnecessary).

THAT... WORK... HAS... BEEN... DONE,... and it is presented in the RoR, and so that first-ever closed system of natural deduction that has been kept under lock and key 🔐 for over three years now is one week away from being unveiled!

✊️🤯👍

StevenAStegeman's tweet photo. With the launch 🚀 of the RoR 📖 on Amazon ONE WEEK away, 'tis time for a reveal... 😲🔎

The central rule of inference, modus ponens, is, we are told, "primitive", not derived. That is a convenient LIE. Indeed, MP's proof in natural deduction is obvious! Here it is:

1. P ⊃ Q
2. P ∴ Q
-------------------
3. ~P ∨ Q DC 1
4. Q DS 3,2

Simple as that: TWO STEPS! 🪄

(Re the justifications... 👨‍🏫

DC = Disjunctive Conditional in the RoR, a typical traditional designation of which is Material Implication (MI)

DS = Disjunctive Syllogism)

In the attached image files, 👇 you can witness ChatGPT go from still not being able to figure this proof 👆 out (Response 1) to FINALLY detecting what is up, putting it together, and presenting the proof (Response 2)!

In light of this, much truer in the traditional context would be that material implication (disjunctive conditional in the RoR) be taken as "primitive", though that is not really true, either, given the presence of the subproof methods of conditional and indirect proof, which, mind you, are speciously affirmed by that aforementioned LIE that modus ponens is "primitive" because when system closure is precluded, incorporating external methods is acceptable.

Indeed, the rule of inference of material implication is traditionally taken to be derived, and, to wit, AI 🤖 will give you proofs in natural deduction for it using conditional/indirect subproofs (that is, ironically to have to say, if it gives you a proof at all 🤪).

Now, it is notable that a proof in natural deduction for modus ponens can also be done, albeit slightly less elegantly, with, in order: (the horseshoe form of) the contrapositive theorems, commutation, and modus tollens. Of course, those three patterns of inference are all derived, too. For example, the proof for the contrapositive theorems requires (two iterations of) the disjunctive conditional and commutation.

Point being, it would make more sense if it were demonstrated within natural deduction that all of them were part of a closed set of logically interconnected, mutually implied fundamental patterns of inference, but that takes a ton of work, which, moreover, the methods of conditional proof stubbornly stand in the way of (because those methods – along with the ability to (arbitrarily) declare a rule of inference "primitive" – seem to render such work unnecessary).

THAT... WORK... HAS... BEEN... DONE,... and it is presented in the RoR, and so that first-ever closed system of natural deduction that has been kept under lock and key 🔐 for over three years now is one week away from being unveiled!

✊️🤯👍

3

9

4

1

1K

HooversKid @Hooverskid

4 months ago

I Can't Call Candace Owens a Christian Anymore, Why I Changed My Mind https://t.co/EniklfrgvV via @YouTube

0

4

0

0

73

HooversKid @Hooverskid

5 months ago

Should Christians Be In Politics... Or Is It A Mistake? https://t.co/lI66NXftQj via @YouTube

0

0

0

0

60

HooversKid @Hooverskid

5 months ago

@Geniustechw Asylum

0

0

0

0

4

HooversKid @Hooverskid

5 months ago

@StevenAStegeman Happy Easter Steg!

0

1

0

0

10

HooversKid @Hooverskid

5 months ago

Gospel of John Bible Study https://t.co/Em4AOwiRQT

6

3

0

0

193

HooversKid @Hooverskid

5 months ago

We had a good discussion tonight about the Bible, Christian Nationalism, etc. About 5 people tuned in throughout the night. Join me tomorrow @Jamesrs2025 it was a pleasure speaking with you.

0

2

0

0

154

HooversKid @Hooverskid

5 months ago

https://t.co/OXNtS47f3C

0

1

0

0

70

HooversKid @Hooverskid

5 months ago

Happy Easter!!!!

0

0

0

0

49

HooversKid @Hooverskid

5 months ago

Why? We need to really lobby our politicians because this is happening everywhere.

Arthur MacWaters

@ArthurMacwaters

5 months ago

Empathy is good But fraudsters and embezzlers have hijacked our empathy $81k/yr per homeless person $52k/yr per capita income This is insanity and is clearly untenable.

ArthurMacwaters's tweet photo. Empathy is good

But fraudsters and embezzlers have hijacked our empathy

$81k/yr per homeless person
$52k/yr per capita income

This is insanity and is clearly untenable. https://t.co/EYaQrdo7eZ

417

8K

2K

432

1M

0

0

0

0

90

HooversKid @Hooverskid

5 months ago

@ArthurMacwaters @elonmusk So fucking unsustainable

0

0

0

0

13

HooversKid @Hooverskid

5 months ago

Happy Good Friday everyone

0

2

0

0

64

HooversKid @Hooverskid

5 months ago

I appreciated the discussion. After learning I was 25% Middle Eastern, a person on the space, who I quite liked and wouldn’t have minded befriending, unfollowed me. This was after engaging in what I thought were some decent conversations. Due to this, as much as I enjoy the conversation, I don’t think I’m gonna be able to participate with that heavy of a negative bias simply because of my genetics. Which to be fair, their target audience and message is very clear and many were welcoming. I enjoy the pro white, based, respectful, and intellectual dialogue. But even though I enjoy it and appreciate it, due to my genetics i get the sense that to some at least, I’m not respected or welcome. That being said, wish you all the best, and good luck in accomplishing your goals.

0

0

0

0

35

HooversKid @Hooverskid

5 months ago

If you wanna build some connections on X, get a hold of me. I’m slowly unfollowing people I don’t know…

1

1

0

0

111

HooversKid @Hooverskid

5 months ago

@headless_giant @CQRadioOnAir Thanks bro

0

1

0

0

11

Last Seen Users on Sotwe

Trends for you

Most Popular Users