| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
John Jones
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:57 pm Post subject: Re: The problematic connective |
 |
|
Mitch wrote:
[quote]On Oct 8, 6:29 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote:
Mitch wrote:
On Oct 8, 2:34 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote:
Herbert Newman wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 00:20:40 +0100 John Jones wrote:
Consider
q "It¢s raining" is true,
p "It¢s Monday" is true.
It does not follow that p ^ q, "It>s Monday and it¢s raining", is true.
That>s indeed fascinating. So if it>s Monday and it>s raining, (i.e. if it
is true that it is Monday and is true that it is raining) you would not
agree that it is true that it is Monday and it is raining. Fascinating,
indeed.
Yes, I would not agree that if it is true that it is Monday and is true
that it is raining, then it is true that it is Monday and it is raining.
I will summarise why I say that:
1) Two truths (Monday, raining) only obtain as one truth if the context
of each truth is the same.
The context for both separately and together is not the universe?
Mitch
Definitely not. It>s raining on Mars, and Monday on earth, may be true
at this time, but we can>t say that, therefore, it IS true that it is
Monday and it is raining. We wouldn>t know what was true. On the other
hand, we can say THEY ARE true that it is raining and it is Monday; but
the truth of that is not significant - it is not the truth of the
conjunction (raining and Monday) but refers vaguely to some truth that
the list (raining, Monday) possesses.
Oh. So I think what you>ve really done is show how those two sentences
('it is raining' and 'it is monday') aren>t true propositions by
themselves, each one requires a lot more information to be a
proposition. Most informal expositions do expect some sort of context
like 'it is monday, right here right now' and 'it is obviously raining
right here right now' (plus any other particulars you might imagine).
Propositional logic works best with mathematical statements.
Which is all to say, there>s not much of a problem with 'and', or the
other connectives (at least not in this conversation), the problem is
with those examples of propositions.
Mitch
[/quote]
Yes, but isn>t it the case that the examples used to illustrate the
problem extend right across the board, with no exceptions? |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
John Jones
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:58 pm Post subject: Re: The problematic connective |
|
|
Jan Burse wrote:
[quote]I would not like to touch, even with my fingertip:
John Jones schrieb:
1) an assumption that p and q arise in the same context (e.g. it>s
raining and Monday in the same spatiotemporal location). Given that
this context is not represented, then p ^ q is true (in this context)
is not a necessary truth but a dependent truth or a problematic
assumed truth;
2) the identity of context of p and q is not assumed. Hence the
necessary truth of their conjunction (and) is only a possible truth
(eg. p and q may, or may not refer to days and times on different
planets);
3) Necessary truth is defined circularly as being logical truth (we
have heard that argument before);
4) p and q, as propositional variables, are contextless. Hence, they
are semantically void.
None of these cases allows us to say that: the conjunction p and q, (p
^ q) of two propositions is true when both p and q are true, false
otherwise.
BUT! (watch your butt)
The word "and2 does not always mean conjunction
in natural language. Here is an example:
"Fred, please choose between the left stack and the right stack!"
[/quote]
Big woof. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Charlie
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 12:03 am Post subject: Re: The problematic connective |
|
|
On Oct 8, 3:43�pm, John Jones <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote:
[quote]Charlie wrote:
In automated logic (via computers) if (p AND q) are considered, they
are implicitly assumed to be considered at the same time and space.
The assumption that AND implies is that its inputs (p,q) are evaluated
at
the same time and in the same operator (logic element). Our computers
would not work otherwise.
Charlie
Might I suggest that it isn>t how you have described it? In a
computer/machine all events are sequenced. There is no computer/machine
that can accumulate its sequenced events. It is not possible to
represent the accumulated truths of p and q by a machine (given the
truth of p and q). We may read the machine as having accumulated its
events, but this is an anthropomorphic reading of the tasks we have
given it. A machine only ever presents sequences or lists and not
accumulations. Only a mind can synthesise events to bring a unitary
emergent property - in this case, that p and q IS true. Machines can>t
do that.
[/quote]
Excuse me:
Each logic operation is static (although a frightening number can be
done each second); whether done on paper, or done in a computer. All
the elements are assembled, frozen in time, and then the logic
operations are performed. Neither formal, nor mechanized Boolean logic
admits of time, sequence, or change.
That>s why we use software, to tell the machine at every step:
00010010: (Now it is time to) do W
00010100: (Now it is time to) do X
00010110: (Now it is time to) do Y
00011000: (Now it is time to) do Z
Charlie |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
John Jones
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 1:17 am Post subject: Re: The problematic connective |
|
|
Mitch wrote:
[quote]On Oct 9, 1:57 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote:
Mitch wrote:
On Oct 8, 6:29 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote:
Mitch wrote:
On Oct 8, 2:34 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote:
Herbert Newman wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 00:20:40 +0100 John Jones wrote:
Consider
q "It¢s raining" is true,
p "It¢s Monday" is true.
It does not follow that p ^ q, "It>s Monday and it¢s raining", is true.
That>s indeed fascinating. So if it>s Monday and it>s raining, (i.e. if it
is true that it is Monday and is true that it is raining) you would not
agree that it is true that it is Monday and it is raining. Fascinating,
indeed.
Yes, I would not agree that if it is true that it is Monday and is true
that it is raining, then it is true that it is Monday and it is raining.
I will summarise why I say that:
1) Two truths (Monday, raining) only obtain as one truth if the context
of each truth is the same.
The context for both separately and together is not the universe?
Mitch
Definitely not. It>s raining on Mars, and Monday on earth, may be true
at this time, but we can>t say that, therefore, it IS true that it is
Monday and it is raining. We wouldn>t know what was true. On the other
hand, we can say THEY ARE true that it is raining and it is Monday; but
the truth of that is not significant - it is not the truth of the
conjunction (raining and Monday) but refers vaguely to some truth that
the list (raining, Monday) possesses.
Oh. So I think what you>ve really done is show how those two sentences
('it is raining' and 'it is monday') aren>t true propositions by
themselves, each one requires a lot more information to be a
proposition. Most informal expositions do expect some sort of context
like 'it is monday, right here right now' and 'it is obviously raining
right here right now' (plus any other particulars you might imagine).
Propositional logic works best with mathematical statements.
Which is all to say, there>s not much of a problem with 'and', or the
other connectives (at least not in this conversation), the problem is
with those examples of propositions.
Mitch
Yes, but isn>t it the case that the examples used to illustrate the
problem extend right across the board, with no exceptions?
I>m not sure what you mean. What does it mean for an example, like
'it>s raining' to extend right across the board no exceptions? Do you
mean for -any- example? Or some example like 'it>s raining' with
properties that is bad? Across the board over what set?
[/quote]
Across the board in the sense that logic>s presentation of truth values
takes place in an assumed universe of discourse where all logical
objects live in the same house, as it were.
[quote]An example like '2 + 2 = 5' is specific enough to be called a
proposition, not having the contextual difficulties you point out.
[/quote]
I can>t see how that example ... yes I can. Is it two and two is, or
are, four? All mathematical objects live in the same house. So I can>t
have different, unknown contexts that prevent me from saying two and two
IS four...but
[quote]So
not -all- statements have the problem (but, with the great worry that
this will be trying to put out a fire with gasoline even statements of
mathematics can have polysemy, e.g. '0=1' is under normal
circumstances, considered to always be a false proposition,
[/quote]
not sure where this is going. 0=1 is false... do we say that it is
'false'? Granted, it doesn>t fit in with any other number statement. I
don>t think it is false, but it might not be a significant expression.
[quote]but one
might consider the trivial ring which has both it>s additive and
multiplicative identities equal, even though the first is usually
called '0' and the second '1'.)
[/quote]
That would be a different house then. So if there are different
mathematical houses that use the same signs, then I can>t say that two
and two IS four. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
OP
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 4:28 am Post subject: Re: The problematic connective |
|
|
John Jones wrote:
[quote]
A proposition which is composed of two propositions
and the connective "and", using the proper syntax,
is true if and only if both of the propositions
of which it is composed are true.
That>s all I>m saying.
Jim Burns
Yes.
It>s wrong. To the plain man, tired of being led astray by logical
platitudes, its clearly wrong, plain and simple.
[/quote]
I>m loving this thread, of course, but with a bit of sadness mixed
in. Where can you go from here? It>s like the end of an era.
If you don>t understand what "if-then" means, what "P" stands for,
or what "and" means, what>s left? There>s nothing left for you here.
You>ll have to head over to alt.i.don>t.speak.french and tell
everybody how "chat" doesn>t actually mean "cat" ;-) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
James Burns
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 4:55 am Post subject: Re: The problematic connective |
|
|
John Jones wrote:
[quote]James Burns wrote:
John Jones wrote:
James Burns wrote:
Herbert Newman wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 00:20:40 +0100 John Jones wrote:
Consider
q "It¢s raining" is true,
p "It¢s Monday" is true.
It does not follow that p ^ q, "It>s Monday and it¢s raining",
is true.
That>s indeed fascinating. So if it>s Monday and it>s raining,
(i.e. if it is true that it is Monday and is true that it is
raining) you would not agree that it is true that it is Monday
and it is raining. Fascinating, indeed.
You are, apparently, following the path blazed by John Jones
and using "fascinating" in the sense of "not remotely fascinating".
Am I correct(*)?
(*) I am using "correct" here in the sense of "correct".
Two truths obtain as one truth through a unifying context.
Without that context, two truths do not so obtain, or only
obtain it as a possibility. That>s all I>m saying folks.
A proposition which is composed of two propositions
and the connective "and", using the proper syntax,
is true if and only if both of the propositions
of which it is composed are true.
That>s all I>m saying.
Yes.
It>s wrong. To the plain man, tired of being
led astray by logical platitudes, its clearly wrong,
plain and simple.
[/quote]
Yes, so you>ve said. Several times, now, in fact.
What I haven>t seen is why you think that>s so
(if you will pardon me for assuming that you>re
not lying by asserting something you do not
think is true).
Since I have nothing to argue with (assuming for
the sake of argument that I wanted to argue),
I am reduced to countering your assertion with
my own assertion: speaking now as a plain man,
I say you are wrong.
I believe I have the advantage of you there, since
I can speak with authority of the point of view of
plain men, whereas you, a philosopher fairly
saturated with anything-but-plain controversies,
cannot.
Jim Burns |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Jesse F. Hughes
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 6:56 am Post subject: Re: The problematic connective |
|
|
James Burns <burns.87@osu.edu> writes:
[quote]I believe I have the advantage of you there, since
I can speak with authority of the point of view of
plain men, whereas you, a philosopher fairly
saturated with anything-but-plain controversies,
cannot.
[/quote]
John Jones is a philosopher in the same sense that James S. Harris is
a mathematician.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Understanding Godel isn>t about following his formal proof. That
would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."
-- Philosopher extraordinaire John Jones
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Jesse F. Hughes
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:00 am Post subject: Re: The problematic connective |
|
|
John Jones <jonescardiff@aol.com> writes:
[quote]Mitch wrote:
Which is all to say, there>s not much of a problem with 'and', or the
other connectives (at least not in this conversation), the problem is
with those examples of propositions.
Mitch
Yes, but isn>t it the case that the examples used to illustrate the
problem extend right across the board, with no exceptions?
[/quote]
There are plenty of well-known examples in which the natural language
"and" does not behave like the logical "and". This basic fact is very
old news, but you haven>t come up with any coherent reasoning along
these lines.
For just one example: In logic, A & B is true in exactly the same
situations in which B & A is true, but in natural language this is not
so.
"Jennie became pregnant and she got married."
has a different meaning from
"Jennie got married and she became pregnant."
This exciting observation that natural language meaning is different
than the meanings of formal connectives has been done. (To be sure,
none of these arguments bear any similarity to your odd claims.)
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"You>re ketchup, so I>ll put you on meatloaf!"
-- Quincy P. Hughes, age five, tries his hand at insults
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
John Jones
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 2:00 pm Post subject: Re: The problematic connective |
|
|
OP wrote:
[quote]John Jones wrote:
A proposition which is composed of two propositions
and the connective "and", using the proper syntax,
is true if and only if both of the propositions
of which it is composed are true.
That>s all I>m saying.
Jim Burns
Yes.
It>s wrong. To the plain man, tired of being led astray by logical
platitudes, its clearly wrong, plain and simple.
I>m loving this thread, of course, but with a bit of sadness mixed in.
Where can you go from here? It>s like the end of an era.
If you don>t understand what "if-then" means, what "P" stands for, or
what "and" means, what>s left? There>s nothing left for you here.
You>ll have to head over to alt.i.don>t.speak.french and tell everybody
how "chat" doesn>t actually mean "cat" ;-)
[/quote]
That>s an odd position to take. To use common understandings and present
them in ways that do not accord with that understanding is not the
province of a technical language, it is a mistake.
Anyway, I don>t think you have understood my point, or haven>t perhaps
had the inclination to look at my arguments. If it is true that my
computer is on and that I am looking at a VDU screen, it is not true
that 'my computer is on and I am looking at a VDU screen'.
The point is, is that you CAN say it, but it is simply another way of
stating that my computer is on and I am looking at a VDU screen. There
is no new unitive or single truth arising from the 'conjunction' of the
two listed propositions and their truths.
Are you with me so far? Now, if you want to say that it IS true that 'my
computer is on and I am looking at a VDU screen', then the conjunction
is offered not merely as a restatement of the list, but is making a new
truth value. But that new truth value has no object to which it refers
because the contexts of the two truths considered alone may be different. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
John Jones
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 2:10 pm Post subject: Re: The problematic connective |
|
|
James Burns wrote:
[quote]John Jones wrote:
James Burns wrote:
John Jones wrote:
James Burns wrote:
Herbert Newman wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 00:20:40 +0100 John Jones wrote:
Consider
q "It¢s raining" is true,
p "It¢s Monday" is true.
It does not follow that p ^ q, "It>s Monday and it¢s raining",
is true.
That>s indeed fascinating. So if it>s Monday and it>s raining,
(i.e. if it is true that it is Monday and is true that it is
raining) you would not agree that it is true that it is Monday
and it is raining. Fascinating, indeed.
You are, apparently, following the path blazed by John Jones
and using "fascinating" in the sense of "not remotely fascinating".
Am I correct(*)?
(*) I am using "correct" here in the sense of "correct".
Two truths obtain as one truth through a unifying context.
Without that context, two truths do not so obtain, or only
obtain it as a possibility. That>s all I>m saying folks.
A proposition which is composed of two propositions
and the connective "and", using the proper syntax,
is true if and only if both of the propositions
of which it is composed are true.
That>s all I>m saying.
Yes.
It>s wrong. To the plain man, tired of being
led astray by logical platitudes, its clearly wrong,
plain and simple.
Yes, so you>ve said. Several times, now, in fact.
What I haven>t seen is why you think that>s so
(if you will pardon me for assuming that you>re
not lying by asserting something you do not
think is true).
Since I have nothing to argue with (assuming for
the sake of argument that I wanted to argue),
I am reduced to countering your assertion with
my own assertion: speaking now as a plain man,
I say you are wrong.
I believe I have the advantage of you there, since
I can speak with authority of the point of view of
plain men, whereas you, a philosopher fairly
saturated with anything-but-plain controversies,
cannot.
Jim Burns
[/quote]
If it is true that it is raining, and it is true that it is Friday, then
I have two unique truths as it were. However, it may be raining on
Venus, and may be Friday on Earth. So I can>t say that the truths it is
raining and it is Friday are 'one truth'. Why? Because there is no
object pertaining to this one truth.
It is offensive to the common man to say that such an object exists.
There is no law that says that truths are additive per se. Truths, like
numbers are additive or countable only if they arise in the same context
or application. So the logical conjunction typically disregards context,
or assumes that there is a universe of discourse. I don>t like that. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
herbzet
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 8:05 am Post subject: Re: The problematic connective |
|
|
John Jones wrote:
[quote]There is no law that says that truths are additive per se. Truths, like
numbers are additive or countable only if they arise in the same context
or application. So the logical conjunction typically disregards context,
or assumes that there is a universe of discourse. I don>t like that.
[/quote]
This is starting to sound like the common objection to
material implication, in that "The moon is made of green
cheese" does not imply "2 + 2 = 4" because the two
propositions are not relevant to each other, that
material implication "disregards context" etc.
After all, material implication is just the denial of
a conjunction: p -> q =def ~(p & ~q).
--
hz |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
John Jones
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 10:11 pm Post subject: Re: The problematic connective |
|
|
John Jones wrote:
[quote]"And" (also called a conjunction, "^") is employed in logic. For
example, the conjunction p and q, (p ^ q) of two propositions is true
when both p and q are true, false otherwise. It would be tedious to even
begin to think otherwise. But Tedium is the name of the dragon who
guards a treasure:
PROPOSAL
If p is true, and if q is true, it does not follow that p and q (as
p^q)IS true. We cannot even say that p and q ARE true. The distinction
here, of course, is that the former is a 'logical' necessity ('p and q'
'is'...) and the latter appears to be merely a grammatical necessity (p
and q 'are'...), a necessity which does not take 'are true' as a truth
evaluation.
DISCUSSION
Consider
q "It’s raining" is true
p "It’s Monday" is true
It does not follow that p ^ q, "It’s Monday and it’s raining", is true.
This is because no reason has been given to consider the conjunction
"and" as occuring in any form other than as a listing of the truths of p
and q. In which case '"It’s Monday and it’s raining", is true' is not
only bad grammar, but grammatical necessities are not necessary truths
(this is why I said that we cannot say that it is a necessity that p and
q ARE true).
We must take another step if we want to show that, given the truth of p,
q, p ^ q IS true. To make that step we must take p 'it is Monday' and q
'it is raining' as arising in the same context and as referring to a
common event p and q "it is Monday and it is raining"; ..but we cannot
really make any assumptions.
CONCLUSION
The logical necessity of "if p, q, then p ^ q is true", is a necessity
that is based on one of the following conditions
1) an assumption that p and q arise in the same context (e.g. it>s
raining and Monday in the same spatiotemporal location). Given that this
context is not represented, then p ^ q is true (in this context) is not
a necessary truth but a dependent truth or a problematic assumed truth;
2) the identity of context of p and q is not assumed. Hence the
necessary truth of their conjunction (and) is only a possible truth (eg.
p and q may, or may not refer to days and times on different planets);
3) Necessary truth is defined circularly as being logical truth (we have
heard that argument before);
4) p and q, as propositional variables, are contextless. Hence, they are
semantically void.
None of these cases allows us to say that: the conjunction p and q, (p ^
q) of two propositions is true when both p and q are true, false otherwise.
test[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
John Jones
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 10:24 pm Post subject: Re: The problematic connective |
|
|
herbzet wrote:
[quote]
John Jones wrote:
There is no law that says that truths are additive per se. Truths, like
numbers are additive or countable only if they arise in the same context
or application. So the logical conjunction typically disregards context,
or assumes that there is a universe of discourse. I don>t like that.
This is starting to sound like the common objection to
material implication, in that "The moon is made of green
cheese" does not imply "2 + 2 = 4" because the two
propositions are not relevant to each other, that
material implication "disregards context" etc.
After all, material implication is just the denial of
a conjunction: p -> q =def ~(p & ~q).
--
hz
It looks like it. And perhaps I can put it yet another way.[/quote]
If p is true, and q is true, then we are not entitled to propose a
composite object or proposition 'p and q' of which we can say that it is
true. Not even if 'p is true, and, q is true' or 'p and q are true' is
merely a synonym for 'p and q is true...'.
In other words, the conjunction 'and' is problematic. It announces a new
object or proposition ('p and q') with a truth value. But it does not
say anything about what sort of object/proposition it is, nor how to
create it. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
John Jones
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 2:37 am Post subject: Re: The problematic connective |
|
|
Mitch wrote:
[quote]On Oct 9, 4:17 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote:
Across the board in the sense that logic>s presentation of truth values
takes place in an assumed universe of discourse where all logical
objects live in the same house, as it were.
Yeah, I>d go along with that. Logic talks about everything. So, no the
-problems- with the examples (of 'it>s raining' and 'it>s monday') do
not extend right across the board across the entire universe of
possible propositions (and most people are OK with assuming that,
e.g., 'it>s raining' refers to right here, right now). '2+2=5' is
pretty definitely a proposition.
An example like '2 + 2 = 5' is specific enough to be called a
proposition, not having the contextual difficulties you point out.
I can>t see how that example ... yes I can. Is it two and two is, or
are, four? All mathematical objects live in the same house. So I can>t
have different, unknown contexts that prevent me from saying two and two
IS four...but
Well, you -could- but it>d be either silly (in our context) or a very
specific notational situation (say addition mod 4, or where '+' really
means concatenate the two strings to get '22'. Math uses mathematical
language so there are contexts of language that can change (like the
following thing about rings).
So
not -all- statements have the problem (but, with the great worry that
this will be trying to put out a fire with gasoline even statements of
mathematics can have polysemy, e.g. '0=1' is under normal
circumstances, considered to always be a false proposition,
not sure where this is going. 0=1 is false... do we say that it is
'false'? Granted, it doesn>t fit in with any other number statement. I
don>t think it is false, but it might not be a significant expression.
Sorry, it is very technical tangent. '0' can be used to refer to a
particular element in an algebra with certain properties, likewise '1'
can be defined with certain other properties, and under certain other
assumptions one can show that '0' acts identically to '1'. But under
normal circumstances, the locution '0=1' is usually taken to be the
canonical false proposition.
[/quote]
As I was saying, 0=1 doesn>t fit in with any number statement. But the
signs 0,1,=, can be used in a different way, or we can make number
statements in entirely different systems to those supporting the
standard 0=1.
[quote]but one
might consider the trivial ring which has both it>s additive and
multiplicative identities equal, even though the first is usually
called '0' and the second '1'.)
That would be a different house then. So if there are different
mathematical houses that use the same signs, then I can>t say that two
and two IS four.
Sure you can. But there might be notational confusion, that is all.
You sure can say it and most people would think you well-justified in
saying it, without having to specify what exactly you meant by 'two',
'plus', 'equals', and 'four'. You can also say '2+2=5' and have it be
meaningful (and just plain false). -Different- house? not really, just
how we call things in the one big house. The name is not the thing.
[/quote]
I was arguing that you can>t argue for 'p and q' from 'p' and 'q', let
alone assign a truth value to it.
[quote]Under certain circumstances, one might refer to the integer 17 and
the rational 17 (= 17/1) and be pedantic that these are -not- the same
thing (e.g. there are certain operations allowable on the rational 17
that are not on the integer 17). There is surely a morphism that
preserves the properties you>d expect of the integer 17 in the
rationals and so it is easy to just think of the integers as a subset
of the rationals or one could make the case (or define) the integers
as that particular subset of the rationals with the appropriate
properties.
The nice thing about mathematical language is that it is intended to
be unambiguous.
[/quote]
I don>t know how far disambiguation can be trusted if it works by
eliminating irreducible distinctions.
[quote]If there is some qualm about ambiguity, then there is
a definition or clarification to be made, the ambiguity is not
tolerated.
[/quote]
No one likes ambiguity, but I don>t think that its elimination is a
particularly mathematical project, nor especially practised by
mathematicians.
[quote]Of course there are inevitable cultural differences between
subtribes, but those are petty differences that are overcome by a
strict transform between the languages.
Mitch[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
John Jones
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 2:39 am Post subject: Re: The problematic connective |
|
|
Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
[quote]John Jones <jonescardiff@aol.com> writes:
Mitch wrote:
Which is all to say, there>s not much of a problem with 'and', or the
other connectives (at least not in this conversation), the problem is
with those examples of propositions.
Mitch
Yes, but isn>t it the case that the examples used to illustrate the
problem extend right across the board, with no exceptions?
There are plenty of well-known examples in which the natural language
"and" does not behave like the logical "and". This basic fact is very
old news, but you haven>t come up with any coherent reasoning along
these lines.
For just one example: In logic, A & B is true in exactly the same
situations in which B & A is true, but in natural language this is not
so.
"Jennie became pregnant and she got married."
has a different meaning from
"Jennie got married and she became pregnant."
This exciting observation that natural language meaning is different
than the meanings of formal connectives has been done. (To be sure,
none of these arguments bear any similarity to your odd claims.)
[/quote]
Any project that claims that its terms are meaningful in a way that is
different to a natural language formulation, can have no meaningful terms. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
