# What logic should not make sense but does anyway?

Rules of inference and symbolic logic.

Take, for example, the following argument with 1 as the original premise, and 2 through 5 as rules of inference:

- A
- A or ~B · addition
- ~B or A · commutative
- ~(~B) → A · material implication
- Therefore, B → A · double negation

Now replace A and B with the following statements: A = apples taste delicious, and B = Batman exists. Let’s translate the above argument:

- Apples taste delicious
- Either apples taste delicious, or it’s not the case that Batman exists
- Either it’s not the case that Batman exists, or apples taste delicious
- If it’s not
*not*the case that Batman exists, then apples taste delicious - Therefore, if Batman exists, then apples taste delicious

It makes no sense. But it follows the rules of logic.