By the way, you can logically prove that it is not. If a man lived 120 years, then with high probability, it can be argued that he can live 1 day, 2 days N days. Thus we get the phenomenon of immortality, but only logical. These arguments from the logical paradoxes and conceptual confusions, what we talked about in the footnote just above. This logical construction does not provide for the inevitable qualitative change of the subject, which in principle excludes the N-education.
If someone builds a sentence, he thereby deals with smyslopolaganie. But not always determined by the meaning of the construction proposal. But always, if the offer is constructed, it makes sense. Only person he may not be available, is not clear.
For example, such object as a stone the sign of mortality, but there is symptom resolution. Therefore, we cannot say that the stones are all mortal, but we can say that all the stones are ever destroyed.
More about this can be read in my book: Why people are asking questions. M., 1993. and in other works.
In traditional logic, if a smaller parcel is part of a large, she immediately takes on the character of the true. Actually it would be correct to write possibly true, completely true because it can not be determined. If a long chain of inferences, the accumulation of small deviations from the true, which leads to a complete nastynasty. Later in the history of philosophy this has led to an almost complete disappointment in the effectiveness of traditional logic to find the truth, from complete euphoria that the formal method of arriving at the truth found. However then all has understood and has established the effectiveness of traditional logic.
![]()
If someone builds a sentence, he thereby deals with smyslopolaganie. But not always determined by the meaning of the construction proposal. But always, if the offer is constructed, it makes sense. Only person he may not be available, is not clear.
For example, such object as a stone the sign of mortality, but there is symptom resolution. Therefore, we cannot say that the stones are all mortal, but we can say that all the stones are ever destroyed.
More about this can be read in my book: Why people are asking questions. M., 1993. and in other works.
In traditional logic, if a smaller parcel is part of a large, she immediately takes on the character of the true. Actually it would be correct to write possibly true, completely true because it can not be determined. If a long chain of inferences, the accumulation of small deviations from the true, which leads to a complete nastynasty. Later in the history of philosophy this has led to an almost complete disappointment in the effectiveness of traditional logic to find the truth, from complete euphoria that the formal method of arriving at the truth found. However then all has understood and has established the effectiveness of traditional logic.