Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Herbert Newman · Guest

Am Sun, 26 Oct 2008 20:10:13 +0000 schrieb John Jones:

[quote]
[...] I would still like someone here to tell me what the
distinction is between '"A" and "B"' and '"A and B"'.

The position and number of quotation marks?[/quote]

Obviously the string

"JJ is an idiot" and "JJ does not have a brain"

differs from the string

"JJ is an idiot and JJ does not have a brain"

(Note that the latter might be used as a name for the sentence

JJ is an idiot and JJ does not have a brain ,

while the former string seems to be "ungrammatical" to me; at least in
"isolation". But we might consider it a fragment. The following looks
reasonable:

"JJ is an idiot" and "JJ does not have a brain" are
two sentences. )

Herb

Ross A. Finlayson · Guest

John Jones wrote:
[quote]Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
John Jones wrote:

You apparently just want a management summary of technical and
analytic philosophy, so you can go about describing pretty much
everything in terms of ontological primitives.

So, as you go about categorizing mostly canon, (as you>ll note Jones
purely spouts dogma, generally) it makes sense to basically generalize.

Sooner or later you>ll be back to computer science, then having a
reasonable understanding of the context leads to nice 2x2 squares.

Way to go, Jones.

Thanks,

Ross F.

Thankyou. But I would still like someone here to tell me what the
distinction is between '"A" and "B"' and '"A and B"'.

[/quote]
When you quote them they are references. That>s a simple way to seem
them. What>s the problem?

You compose the objects and their relations because the objects are
their relations. Now, that obviously doesn>t always apply. To say "A
and B" in the sense of the one binary operator "and", or, as it>s often
written, AND or "AND", sometimes has the same meanings for the objects
with the transfer principle. Primitively, the objects do self-define,
identify, themselves in that manner, except it>s themself.

Where you carefully define your terms, the meanings are clear. Where
you don>t, they>re not.

Thanks,

Ross F.

John Jones · Guest

herbzet wrote:
[quote]
herbzet wrote:

=================================
I>d just like to add that you might, or might not, want to distinguish
a definition of what 'and' "is" from a description of the circumstances
in which 'A and B' is true. Maybe one will serve for the other?

My little foray into the philosophy of the essences of things
in news:48E595EF.D7C9452A@gmail.com might have some bearing
here also.

I wrote:

Look, we don>t know what anything *is*, we just can describe its
relation to other things. A man is made of molecules, which are
made of atoms, which have protons, which are made of quarks.
What>s a quark? It>s not made of wool, or plastic, or wood.
It>s, finally, just its behaviour. Same with electrons and
other leptons. We don>t know what they "are", we just describe
their behavior with regard to other leptons, and to other sorts of
things, like quarks.

All we can say about "successor" is how things behave in relation
to other things when they have a successor or when they are a
successor etc. The description of the behaviours are the properties
of "successor" and constitute the definition of "successor".

Similarly for 'and'. We don>t define it; we give some axioms
for using it, and away we go. Some things must be accepted as
given just to kickstart the whole enterprise.

--
hz
[/quote]
The problem of finding the object that spins in darkness at the centre
of its property satellites has been tackled. One author reduces objects
to space and time, and reduces space and time still further to a
framework that allows discrimination.

John Jones · Guest

Herbert Newman wrote:
[quote]Am Sun, 26 Oct 2008 01:07:17 -0500 schrieb herbzet:

Similarly for 'and'. We don>t define it; we give some axioms
[or rules] for using it, and away we go. [...]

Actually, I like this "approach" very much. The funny thing is that we can
actually set up a logical system for, say, propositional logic (PC) this
way. In a decent system of _natural deduction_ for PC we have the RULES:

A B A and B A and B
------- (&I) ------- (&E) ------- (&E)
A and B A B

Those rules tell us how to manipulate formulas (or sentences) in connection
with the connective "and".

The first rule allows to "introduce" the conjunction 'A and B' if two
sentences A and B have already occurred in the course of proof.
[/quote]
My argument is that 'conjunction' is underspecified and so cannot be
introduced. Just what is 'A and B' if it>s not the same as 'A' and 'B'?

[quote]While the
other rule(s) allows to "split up" the conjunction into the two involved
conjuncts.
[/quote]
Can the action 'splitting the conjunction' be performed if we don>t know
what sort of a synthesis is made by a conjunction?

My argument is that the conjunction cannot be split because we don>t
know whether the conjunction is an emergent whole or a totality of parts.

[quote]We might claim that this way "and" is "introduced" in an "operationalistic"
way. Pondering about these things, Wittgenstein comes to mind:

"For a large class of cases ¡X though not for all ¡X in which we employ the
word 'meaning' it can be defined thus: the meaning of a word is its use in
the language" (PI 43)
[/quote]
That>s why to ask for the meaning of a word is not to participate in
language. If we had to ask for the meaning, then we are looking at a
translation or definition, and these aren>t language proper.

John Jones · Guest

Herbert Newman wrote:
[quote]Am Sun, 26 Oct 2008 16:37:00 +0000 schrieb John Jones:

IF

"It is true that the number of deaths caused by drink is 1000, and it is
true that the number of deaths caused by driving is 2000",

THEN, how can I make any claim regarding the truth of

"It is true that the number of deaths caused by drinking and driving is
...."

Huh? Relevance? :-o

I can>t make any claims regarding the truth of "A and B" from the truths
of "A" and "B". Yes?

Sure you can. If -for example- the two sentences

John Jones is an idiot
and
John Jones does not know what he>s talking about

are both true, then the "compound" sentence

John Jones is an idiot and John Jones does not know what he>s
talking about

is true too.

Herb

[/quote]
Here>s your compound sentence example shot down in flames. Enjoy.

You are claiming that the number of deaths from drunken driving can be
calculated from the number of deaths from drinking and the number of
deaths from driving.

John Jones · Guest

Herbert Newman wrote:
[quote]Am Sun, 26 Oct 2008 20:10:13 +0000 schrieb John Jones:

[...] I would still like someone here to tell me what the
distinction is between '"A" and "B"' and '"A and B"'.

The position and number of quotation marks?

Obviously the string

"JJ is an idiot" and "JJ does not have a brain"

differs from the string

"JJ is an idiot and JJ does not have a brain"

(Note that the latter might be used as a name for the sentence

JJ is an idiot and JJ does not have a brain ,

while the former string seems to be "ungrammatical" to me; at least in
"isolation". But we might consider it a fragment. The following looks
reasonable:

"JJ is an idiot" and "JJ does not have a brain" are
two sentences. )

Herb
[/quote]
This conjunction business doesn>t really work, does it.

If I was you I would get a sleeping blanket, some food and water, and
set out for the mountains to get help.

John Jones · Guest

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
[quote]John Jones wrote:
Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
John Jones wrote:

You apparently just want a management summary of technical and
analytic philosophy, so you can go about describing pretty much
everything in terms of ontological primitives.

So, as you go about categorizing mostly canon, (as you>ll note Jones
purely spouts dogma, generally) it makes sense to basically generalize.

Sooner or later you>ll be back to computer science, then having a
reasonable understanding of the context leads to nice 2x2 squares.

Way to go, Jones.

Thanks,

Ross F.

Thankyou. But I would still like someone here to tell me what the
distinction is between '"A" and "B"' and '"A and B"'.

When you quote them they are references. That>s a simple way to seem
them. What>s the problem?

You compose the objects and their relations because the objects are
their relations. Now, that obviously doesn>t always apply. To say "A
and B" in the sense of the one binary operator "and", or, as it>s often
written, AND or "AND", sometimes has the same meanings for the objects
with the transfer principle. Primitively, the objects do self-define,
identify, themselves in that manner, except it>s themself.

Where you carefully define your terms, the meanings are clear. Where
you don>t, they>re not.

Thanks,

Ross F.

[/quote]
An appeal to syntrax is fine. In that case syntax would seem to point to
this way of looking at it: 'A and B' refers to a new object. Let>s call
it C. C cannot be inferred from 'A' and 'B'.

Even though C has parts A and B, A and B do not summate to C even though
A and B can be summated. My problem is that the standard logical grammar
of 'A and B' is imprecise. We take on board an assumption to the effect
that something happens and makes sense when there is a conjunction. But
this something, maybe it>s C, is never specified.

Herbert Newman · Guest

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 21:51:24 +0000 John Jones wrote:

[quote]
[...] what is 'A and B' if it>s not the same as 'A' and 'B'?

.... what is (the one sentence)[/quote]

JJ is an idiot and JJ does not have a brain

if it is not the same as (the two sentences)

JJ is an idiot
and
JJ does not have a brain

?

Well, I guess it is ONE sentence, while

JJ is an idiot
and
JJ does not have a brain.

are two sentences. And 1 =/= 2; though 1 + 1 = 2.

Herb

herbzet · Guest

John Jones wrote:

[...]

[quote]But I would still like someone here to tell me what the
distinction is between '"A" and "B"' and '"A and B"'.
[/quote]
Well, this is very succinct.

Good show!

--
hz

herbzet · Guest

Herbert Newman wrote:
[quote]schrieb John Jones:

IF

"It is true that the number of deaths caused by drink is 1000, and it is
true that the number of deaths caused by driving is 2000",

THEN, how can I make any claim regarding the truth of

"It is true that the number of deaths caused by drinking and driving is
...."

Huh? Relevance? :-o
[/quote]

Oh, come on. You know JJ needs it spelled out in greater detail than this!

But not too much detail -- that confuses him.

--
hz

[quote]I can>t make any claims regarding the truth of "A and B" from the truths
of "A" and "B". Yes?

Sure you can. If -for example- the two sentences

John Jones is an idiot
and
John Jones does not know what he>s talking about

are both true, then the "compound" sentence

John Jones is an idiot and John Jones does not know what he>s
talking about

is true too.

Herb[/quote]

herbzet · Guest

Herbert Newman wrote:
[quote]John Jones wrote:

[...] I would still like someone here to tell me what the
distinction is between '"A" and "B"' and '"A and B"'.

The position and number of quotation marks?

Obviously the string

"JJ is an idiot" and "JJ does not have a brain"

differs from the string

"JJ is an idiot and JJ does not have a brain"

(Note that the latter might be used as a name for the sentence

JJ is an idiot and JJ does not have a brain ,

while the former string seems to be "ungrammatical" to me; at least in
"isolation". But we might consider it a fragment. The following looks
reasonable:

"JJ is an idiot" and "JJ does not have a brain" are
two sentences. )

Herb
[/quote]

Good post.

Pretty early in "Mathematical Logic" Quine, in discussing the
peculiarities of material implication, notes that "implies"
grammatically is correctly placed between quoted sentences, e.g.,

"JJ is an idiot" implies "JJ does not have a brain"

wheras it is ungrammatical to write

JJ is an idiot implies JJ does not have a brain

and that this is overlooked in the calculus, where we write

p -> q.

He makes rather a big deal out of this, to little effect, imo.

We should note that "that" may be substituted for quote marks:

That JJ is an idiot implies that JJ does not have a brain

and also that, colloquially, the second "that" is often left off:

That JJ is an idiot implies JJ does not have a brain

which may or may not be acceptable in polite company.

--
hz

herbzet · Guest

"Ross A. Finlayson" wrote:

[quote]Where you carefully define your terms, the meanings are clear. Where
you don>t, they>re not.
[/quote]
Words to live by.

[quote]Thanks,
[/quote]
Thank *you*.

> Ross F.

herbzet · Guest

John Jones wrote:
[quote]herbzet wrote:
herbzet wrote:

=================================
I>d just like to add that you might, or might not, want to distinguish
a definition of what 'and' "is" from a description of the circumstances
in which 'A and B' is true. Maybe one will serve for the other?

My little foray into the philosophy of the essences of things
in news:48E595EF.D7C9452A@gmail.com might have some bearing
here also.

I wrote:

Look, we don>t know what anything *is*, we just can describe its
relation to other things. A man is made of molecules, which are
made of atoms, which have protons, which are made of quarks.
What>s a quark? It>s not made of wool, or plastic, or wood.
It>s, finally, just its behaviour. Same with electrons and
other leptons. We don>t know what they "are", we just describe
their behavior with regard to other leptons, and to other sorts of
things, like quarks.

All we can say about "successor" is how things behave in relation
to other things when they have a successor or when they are a
successor etc. The description of the behaviours are the properties
of "successor" and constitute the definition of "successor".

Similarly for 'and'. We don>t define it; we give some axioms
for using it, and away we go. Some things must be accepted as
given just to kickstart the whole enterprise.

--
hz

The problem of finding the object that spins in darkness at the centre
of its property satellites has been tackled.
[/quote]
Very nice. Very, very nice. Yours, I hope.

[quote]One author reduces objects
to space and time, and reduces space and time still further to a
framework that allows discrimination.
[/quote]
--
hz

herbzet · Guest

John Jones wrote:

[quote]One author reduces objects to space and time, and reduces
space and time still further to a framework that allows
discrimination.
[/quote]
"Eros and dust" -- James Ellroy, "The Big Nowhere".

--

herbzet · Guest

John Jones wrote:
[quote]Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
[/quote]
[...]

[quote]Where you carefully define your terms, the meanings are clear. Where
you don>t, they>re not.

An appeal to syntrax is fine. In that case syntax would seem to point to
this way of looking at it: 'A and B' refers to a new object. Let>s call
it C. C cannot be inferred from 'A' and 'B'.

Even though C has parts A and B, A and B do not summate to C even though
A and B can be summated. My problem is that the standard logical grammar
of 'A and B' is imprecise. We take on board an assumption to the effect
that something happens and makes sense when there is a conjunction. But
this something, maybe it>s C, is never specified.
[/quote]
Is the (positive) square root of 2 (sqrt(2)) ever specified?

IOW, please define, as per Ross, "specified".

--
hz


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Logic Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 3 of 4