Contradiction and validity. If you can please explain it to me in a short answer in your own words
Why arguments with contradictory premises are valid. This principle, referred to as 'explosion', is often used as an argument for the necessity of classical logic. Explain the way in which this argument works.
The truth table definition of material implication is often thought to be very puzzling. Why it is thought to be puzzling? What response may be given in the definition's defense?