Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  nodelist  faq  login

You have mail.


computers / comp.ai.philosophy / Re: Vacuously TRUE vs Vacuously FALSE? [ natural preexisting order of the body of knowledge ]

SubjectAuthor
* Re: Vacuously TRUE vs Vacuously FALSE? [ natural preexisting order ofolcott
`* Re: Vacuously TRUE vs Vacuously FALSE? [ natural preexisting order ofPeter
 `* Re: Vacuously TRUE vs Vacuously FALSE? [ natural preexisting order ofolcott
  `- Re: Vacuously TRUE vs Vacuously FALSE? [ natural preexisting order ofPeter

1
Subject: Re: Vacuously TRUE vs Vacuously FALSE? [ natural preexisting order of the body of knowledge ]
From: olcott
Newsgroups: sci.logic, comp.ai.philosophy
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 14:36 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 09:37:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Vacuously TRUE vs Vacuously FALSE? [ natural preexisting order of
the body of knowledge ]
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
References: <71eaa840-8fe7-48fe-a1ef-36a154c4ed99n@googlegroups.com>
<0f241281-c5d3-4d58-bdd5-43d3295d0f6an@googlegroups.com>
<FbGdncQ-Bv4zvu78nZ2dnUU7-I3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<05d8a409-7b43-4752-9631-f44991240a85n@googlegroups.com>
<A5SdnU1Tj4CFtu78nZ2dnUU7-cmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c1d62f7f-c963-46d0-9efd-59f7e4bbdd17n@googlegroups.com>
<_OydndjFj6bFru78nZ2dnUU7-fGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ac966f33-6da3-4d82-be07-356ca9f8c203n@googlegroups.com>
<QZGdnZQavsd4pe78nZ2dnUU7-aOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7f41b902-438b-4db7-955d-d3e3e7301fa2n@googlegroups.com>
<Vcednepc4spi3-78nZ2dnUU7-ROdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sl10an$12ms$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<erCdndEZJo7kpun8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d48b25ea-c1fe-4de5-a51f-0b6a2296a762n@googlegroups.com>
<a7SdnVF2LOaI_un8nZ2dnUU78e_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<a4daaa2a-6279-48f5-a52b-e36f79f79e3cn@googlegroups.com>
<tIydnfXJs8f2FOn8nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sl2gt6$e43$1@dont-email.me>
<RZOdnYp7U5C8TOn8nZ2dnUU7-U3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sl3v4r$7c3$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 09:36:58 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <sl3v4r$7c3$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <3POdnajY-NSRXOv8nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 72
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Qo6ravuFdWH25iRhvz6siOQqSo/z8vec4HeCN3zEETHUxIj7tgksPKpQ1zySsEO60laCeJ/yg03TpOy!4+EARdoX+5f+bdqFV9nvwv52F7f/+PJqNy+HGWQ8/Yw7BiR1FZuxRZTwbJabbap2fEbLwB+qC/M=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4800
View all headers
On 10/24/2021 10:46 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2021-10-23 21:21, olcott wrote:
On 10/23/2021 9:37 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:

When the goal is to define the mathematical basis of infallible reasoning that references natural language semantics logical implication

Logic doesn't have that goal.


Logic is supposed to at least be a system of correct reasoning.

seems to be at least unnecessary and at most quite harmful.

Although the common base meaning of A implies B is maintained the overloaded meaning totally screws this up.

How do you determine which of the various meanings of a natural language term is the 'base meaning'?

When we define the unique set of all semantic meanings and
(a) Disallow every trace of redundancy
(b) Disallow overloading the same term with more than one unique semantic meaning
(c) Assign each unique semantic meaning to a GUID

Then the natural preexisting order of the body of all knowledge is specified.

And if you think overloading 'screws things up', then you should be objecting to natural language, not logic, though this objection would be utterly pointless since natural language always has and always will allow multiple meanings for the same word. Maybe you should learn how natural language works.

If natural language conditionals were understood in the same way, that would mean that the sentence "If the Nazis won World War Two, everybody would be happy" is true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradoxes_of_material_implication

Many natural language expressions *are* interpreted as material implication. For example "If you under eighteen then you cannot purchase alcohol".

The meaning of the logical connective → unambiguously refers to this one specific meaning of if...then. I fail to see why you see this as a problem.


It is better to replace
X ⇒ Y
   with
X ⊨ Y (requiring a semantic connection between X and Y)

This prevents nonsense from being contrued as logically correct.

Why is this more problematic than the fact that natural language 'or' can be either exclusive or inclusive whereas logical or is unambiguously inclusive?

Or the fact that logical and is unambiguously truth-functional whereas natural language uses it in other ways? (e.g. "a zebra has black and white stripes".)

André



--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein


Subject: Re: Vacuously TRUE vs Vacuously FALSE? [ natural preexisting order of the body of knowledge ]
From: Peter
Newsgroups: sci.logic, comp.ai.philosophy
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 15:00 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Path: i2pn2.org!rocksolid2!i2pn.org!aioe.org!AcAmeFgZZ294B1QutgqNEQ.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: peterxpe...@hotmail.com (Peter)
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Vacuously TRUE vs Vacuously FALSE? [ natural preexisting order of
the body of knowledge ]
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 16:00:21 +0100
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <sl6gq5$e6k$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <71eaa840-8fe7-48fe-a1ef-36a154c4ed99n@googlegroups.com>
<FbGdncQ-Bv4zvu78nZ2dnUU7-I3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<05d8a409-7b43-4752-9631-f44991240a85n@googlegroups.com>
<A5SdnU1Tj4CFtu78nZ2dnUU7-cmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c1d62f7f-c963-46d0-9efd-59f7e4bbdd17n@googlegroups.com>
<_OydndjFj6bFru78nZ2dnUU7-fGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ac966f33-6da3-4d82-be07-356ca9f8c203n@googlegroups.com>
<QZGdnZQavsd4pe78nZ2dnUU7-aOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7f41b902-438b-4db7-955d-d3e3e7301fa2n@googlegroups.com>
<Vcednepc4spi3-78nZ2dnUU7-ROdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sl10an$12ms$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<erCdndEZJo7kpun8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d48b25ea-c1fe-4de5-a51f-0b6a2296a762n@googlegroups.com>
<a7SdnVF2LOaI_un8nZ2dnUU78e_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<a4daaa2a-6279-48f5-a52b-e36f79f79e3cn@googlegroups.com>
<tIydnfXJs8f2FOn8nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sl2gt6$e43$1@dont-email.me>
<RZOdnYp7U5C8TOn8nZ2dnUU7-U3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sl3v4r$7c3$1@dont-email.me>
<3POdnajY-NSRXOv8nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="14548"; posting-host="AcAmeFgZZ294B1QutgqNEQ.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/60.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.9.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
View all headers
olcott wrote:
On 10/24/2021 10:46 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2021-10-23 21:21, olcott wrote:
On 10/23/2021 9:37 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:

When the goal is to define the mathematical basis of infallible reasoning that references natural language semantics logical implication

Logic doesn't have that goal.


Logic is supposed to at least be a system of correct reasoning.

seems to be at least unnecessary and at most quite harmful.

Although the common base meaning of A implies B is maintained the overloaded meaning totally screws this up.

How do you determine which of the various meanings of a natural language term is the 'base meaning'?

When we define the unique set of all semantic meanings and
(a) Disallow every trace of redundancy
(b) Disallow overloading the same term with more than one unique semantic meaning
(c) Assign each unique semantic meaning to a GUID

Then the natural preexisting order of the body of all knowledge is specified.

And if you think overloading 'screws things up', then you should be objecting to natural language, not logic, though this objection would be utterly pointless since natural language always has and always will allow multiple meanings for the same word. Maybe you should learn how natural language works.

If natural language conditionals were understood in the same way, that would mean that the sentence "If the Nazis won World War Two, everybody would be happy" is true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradoxes_of_material_implication

Many natural language expressions *are* interpreted as material implication. For example "If you under eighteen then you cannot purchase alcohol".

The meaning of the logical connective → unambiguously refers to this one specific meaning of if...then. I fail to see why you see this as a problem.


It is better to replace
X ⇒ Y
   with
X ⊨ Y (requiring a semantic connection between X and Y)

This prevents nonsense from being contrued as logically correct.

If you look up "modus ponens" and "deduction theorem" you will see that X ⇒ Y and X ⊨ Y go hand-in-hand.  So an (imagined) problem with one is an (imagined) problem with the other.


Why is this more problematic than the fact that natural language 'or' can be either exclusive or inclusive whereas logical or is unambiguously inclusive?

Or the fact that logical and is unambiguously truth-functional whereas natural language uses it in other ways? (e.g. "a zebra has black and white stripes".)

André





--
The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here
Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg


Subject: Re: Vacuously TRUE vs Vacuously FALSE? [ natural preexisting order of the body of knowledge ]
From: olcott
Newsgroups: sci.logic, comp.ai.philosophy
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 15:39 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 10:39:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Vacuously TRUE vs Vacuously FALSE? [ natural preexisting order of
the body of knowledge ]
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
References: <71eaa840-8fe7-48fe-a1ef-36a154c4ed99n@googlegroups.com>
<05d8a409-7b43-4752-9631-f44991240a85n@googlegroups.com>
<A5SdnU1Tj4CFtu78nZ2dnUU7-cmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c1d62f7f-c963-46d0-9efd-59f7e4bbdd17n@googlegroups.com>
<_OydndjFj6bFru78nZ2dnUU7-fGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ac966f33-6da3-4d82-be07-356ca9f8c203n@googlegroups.com>
<QZGdnZQavsd4pe78nZ2dnUU7-aOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7f41b902-438b-4db7-955d-d3e3e7301fa2n@googlegroups.com>
<Vcednepc4spi3-78nZ2dnUU7-ROdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sl10an$12ms$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<erCdndEZJo7kpun8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d48b25ea-c1fe-4de5-a51f-0b6a2296a762n@googlegroups.com>
<a7SdnVF2LOaI_un8nZ2dnUU78e_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<a4daaa2a-6279-48f5-a52b-e36f79f79e3cn@googlegroups.com>
<tIydnfXJs8f2FOn8nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sl2gt6$e43$1@dont-email.me>
<RZOdnYp7U5C8TOn8nZ2dnUU7-U3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sl3v4r$7c3$1@dont-email.me>
<3POdnajY-NSRXOv8nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sl6gq5$e6k$1@gioia.aioe.org>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 10:39:44 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <sl6gq5$e6k$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <KbudnbDHIN9fUuv8nZ2dnUU7-K-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 90
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-6CiMk4BExg+IsPXc48U4DfYNY6XN3O8xi2DPZjywiQLTS+AlVsWfMZZmH7qzkvQnoCYzBoZlCZLg53J!ulX954C9PxCFST4hqkcIMAF10G5ZsOBvh3YQxLLiAe3xRw0qrxPVF5RDf1VPIjL7n3sbPl3uJ8s=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 5406
View all headers
On 10/25/2021 10:00 AM, Peter wrote:
olcott wrote:
On 10/24/2021 10:46 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2021-10-23 21:21, olcott wrote:
On 10/23/2021 9:37 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:

When the goal is to define the mathematical basis of infallible reasoning that references natural language semantics logical implication

Logic doesn't have that goal.


Logic is supposed to at least be a system of correct reasoning.

seems to be at least unnecessary and at most quite harmful.

Although the common base meaning of A implies B is maintained the overloaded meaning totally screws this up.

How do you determine which of the various meanings of a natural language term is the 'base meaning'?

When we define the unique set of all semantic meanings and
(a) Disallow every trace of redundancy
(b) Disallow overloading the same term with more than one unique semantic meaning
(c) Assign each unique semantic meaning to a GUID

Then the natural preexisting order of the body of all knowledge is specified.

And if you think overloading 'screws things up', then you should be objecting to natural language, not logic, though this objection would be utterly pointless since natural language always has and always will allow multiple meanings for the same word. Maybe you should learn how natural language works.

If natural language conditionals were understood in the same way, that would mean that the sentence "If the Nazis won World War Two, everybody would be happy" is true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradoxes_of_material_implication

Many natural language expressions *are* interpreted as material implication. For example "If you under eighteen then you cannot purchase alcohol".

The meaning of the logical connective → unambiguously refers to this one specific meaning of if...then. I fail to see why you see this as a problem.


It is better to replace
X ⇒ Y
   with
X ⊨ Y (requiring a semantic connection between X and Y)

This prevents nonsense from being contrued as logically correct.

If you look up "modus ponens" and "deduction theorem" you will see that X ⇒ Y and X ⊨ Y go hand-in-hand.  So an (imagined) problem with one is an (imagined) problem with the other.


"This sentence is not true", is simply not a truth bearer. When an expression of language is not a truth bearer then it is not an expression of logic, thus eliminating any need for three-valued logic.


Why is this more problematic than the fact that natural language 'or' can be either exclusive or inclusive whereas logical or is unambiguously inclusive?

Or the fact that logical and is unambiguously truth-functional whereas natural language uses it in other ways? (e.g. "a zebra has black and white stripes".)

André







--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein


Subject: Re: Vacuously TRUE vs Vacuously FALSE? [ natural preexisting order of the body of knowledge ]
From: Peter
Newsgroups: sci.logic, comp.ai.philosophy
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 16:26 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Path: i2pn2.org!rocksolid2!i2pn.org!aioe.org!AcAmeFgZZ294B1QutgqNEQ.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: peterxpe...@hotmail.com (Peter)
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Vacuously TRUE vs Vacuously FALSE? [ natural preexisting order of
the body of knowledge ]
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 17:26:55 +0100
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <sl6lsg$1clm$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <71eaa840-8fe7-48fe-a1ef-36a154c4ed99n@googlegroups.com>
<A5SdnU1Tj4CFtu78nZ2dnUU7-cmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c1d62f7f-c963-46d0-9efd-59f7e4bbdd17n@googlegroups.com>
<_OydndjFj6bFru78nZ2dnUU7-fGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ac966f33-6da3-4d82-be07-356ca9f8c203n@googlegroups.com>
<QZGdnZQavsd4pe78nZ2dnUU7-aOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7f41b902-438b-4db7-955d-d3e3e7301fa2n@googlegroups.com>
<Vcednepc4spi3-78nZ2dnUU7-ROdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sl10an$12ms$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<erCdndEZJo7kpun8nZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d48b25ea-c1fe-4de5-a51f-0b6a2296a762n@googlegroups.com>
<a7SdnVF2LOaI_un8nZ2dnUU78e_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<a4daaa2a-6279-48f5-a52b-e36f79f79e3cn@googlegroups.com>
<tIydnfXJs8f2FOn8nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sl2gt6$e43$1@dont-email.me>
<RZOdnYp7U5C8TOn8nZ2dnUU7-U3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sl3v4r$7c3$1@dont-email.me>
<3POdnajY-NSRXOv8nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sl6gq5$e6k$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<KbudnbDHIN9fUuv8nZ2dnUU7-K-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="45750"; posting-host="AcAmeFgZZ294B1QutgqNEQ.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/60.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.9.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
View all headers
olcott wrote:
On 10/25/2021 10:00 AM, Peter wrote:
olcott wrote:
On 10/24/2021 10:46 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2021-10-23 21:21, olcott wrote:
On 10/23/2021 9:37 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:

When the goal is to define the mathematical basis of infallible reasoning that references natural language semantics logical implication

Logic doesn't have that goal.


Logic is supposed to at least be a system of correct reasoning.

seems to be at least unnecessary and at most quite harmful.

Although the common base meaning of A implies B is maintained the overloaded meaning totally screws this up.

How do you determine which of the various meanings of a natural language term is the 'base meaning'?

When we define the unique set of all semantic meanings and
(a) Disallow every trace of redundancy
(b) Disallow overloading the same term with more than one unique semantic meaning
(c) Assign each unique semantic meaning to a GUID

Then the natural preexisting order of the body of all knowledge is specified.

And if you think overloading 'screws things up', then you should be objecting to natural language, not logic, though this objection would be utterly pointless since natural language always has and always will allow multiple meanings for the same word. Maybe you should learn how natural language works.

If natural language conditionals were understood in the same way, that would mean that the sentence "If the Nazis won World War Two, everybody would be happy" is true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradoxes_of_material_implication

Many natural language expressions *are* interpreted as material implication. For example "If you under eighteen then you cannot purchase alcohol".

The meaning of the logical connective → unambiguously refers to this one specific meaning of if...then. I fail to see why you see this as a problem.


It is better to replace
X ⇒ Y
   with
X ⊨ Y (requiring a semantic connection between X and Y)

This prevents nonsense from being contrued as logically correct.

If you look up "modus ponens" and "deduction theorem" you will see that X ⇒ Y and X ⊨ Y go hand-in-hand.  So an (imagined) problem with one is an (imagined) problem with the other.


"This sentence is not true", is simply not a truth bearer

It's also irrelevant to the matter being discussed.  I wonder how you get on in real life.  In my mind's eye I see you making a cup of coffee and half way though changing to making a cup of tea simply because you cannot concentrate on one thing for any length of time.

. When an expression of language is not a truth bearer then it is not an expression of logic, thus eliminating any need for three-valued logic.


Why is this more problematic than the fact that natural language 'or' can be either exclusive or inclusive whereas logical or is unambiguously inclusive?

Or the fact that logical and is unambiguously truth-functional whereas natural language uses it in other ways? (e.g. "a zebra has black and white stripes".)

André









--
The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here
Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg


1
rocksolid light 0.7.2
clearneti2ptor