What kind of claim is the conjunction of the following subclaims?

[Boojatta]

Subclaim #1: Any message that associates an abstract construct and an observation of reality is a result of ignorance.

Subclaim #2: This original post associates an abstract construct and an observation of reality.

Subclaim #3: This original post isn't a result of ignorance.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

1. Are we adding the 3 subclaims into a universal claim?

And when we say "observation of reality" are we talking anecdotal or statistical data? Because we can't solve for Subclaim 3 without knowing that.

[Boojatta]

5. I have questions about your questions.

What does "adding the 3 subclaims" mean? Do you mean connecting them with the "and" operator? In other words, do you mean forming the conjunction of them?

It's not clear what the "universal claim" would be or why it is alleged to be a "universal claim."

What does it mean to "solve for" Subclaim #3?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

7. Well why don't you tell us?

You're the one talking about "conjunctions" of subclaims. I think you should explain, in plain English, the conclusion we're supposed to accept or reject.

[Boojatta]

9. I apologize if the Original Post was unclear.

Let's begin with something more familiar: Let C be the name for the sentence "if p then q" where p is a sentence and q is a sentence. The usual academic jargon refers to C as a conditional, p as the antecedent of C, and q as the consequent of C.

Now, suppose that S is the set {p, q}. Suppose we conjoin the elements of the set S. Then we obtain "p and q." It seems fairly natural to refer to what we get by conjoining the elements of S as a conjunction. Similarly, the disjunction formed from the elements of the set S is "p or q."

Now, if I list three statements that I refer to for convenience as "subclaims", then when I speak of the conjunction of them I am referring to the statement that I obtain when I use the connective "and" to combine them into a single statement. In other words, the conjunction of the three subclaims is the statement: "Subclaim #1 and Subclaim #2 and Subclaim #3."

Anyway, the "us" that you refer to consists of you and who else?

[cosmik debris]

10. Fail.

The poster requested plain English.

[napoleon_in_rags]

2. Subclaim #1 is just plain wrong.

I mean you'd have to be on crack. All mathematics is abstract constructs, and its applied to reality through every field of science in meaningful ways that are clearly not "ignorant".

[dweller]

3. Don Juan is dead

Long live Don Juan.

none of the above, as always.
dp

[Silent3]

4. It doesn't matter if these claims are valid or not...

...because you're still a long way from meeting your $500 deductible.

[Random_Australian]

6. You can note that the same logical constructs are used in the two original socrates/maths claims.

(well, more or less)

Actually, skipping a long argument and getting to the point, you are not dealing with anything with error terms, (and I use that expression very broadly), so claims cannot be either ordinary or extraordinary.

In case you are wondering, ordinary and extraordinary are approximations - claims that are very unlikely to be true (eg. if you had a new results 50 standard deviations away from what anyone else got) are usually termed extraordinary, things that are completely fine (within error) and ordinary.

(Yes, the distinction isn't exact. Dun dun dunnnnnnnnnnnnn)

[HamdenRice]

8. There is no subclaim

Only Zuul!

[Jim__]

11. A self-contradictory claim.

That's assuming, of course, that this original post is taken to be a message. Given that, the conjunction amounts to:

A & B => C AND
A & B AND
NOT C

If this original post cannot be taken as a message, then the conjunction is just an uninteresting conglameration of statements.