# Thread: Woman and man's highest calling- Cherokee proverb

1. Originally Posted by Orangey
When did I ever say that I expect people to be syntactically correct all the time? Greenfairy is the one who brought formal logic into this, and in formal logical terms, the translation of "women love apples" would require a universal quantifier.
Not necessarily, since it's taking a commonly interpreted statement and turning it into a logical one.

Your whole argument is built around interpreting the original statement "women love apples" differently than greenfairy interpreted it, and have kind of missed the point because of that.

You're asserting that there indeed exists a convention in formal logic for converting informal statements. I'd like to see the rule that says 'the all is implied' that you didn't just make up on the spot.

Nevertheless, you're going to make category mistakes in real argumentation if you don't watch your language. It'll just be called a fallacy at that point.
Yes, that much is true.

2. Originally Posted by sprinkles
Not necessarily, since it's taking a commonly interpreted statement and turning it into a logical one.

Your whole argument is built around interpreting the original statement "women love apples" differently than greenfairy interpreted it, and have kind of missed the point because of that.

You're asserting that there indeed exists a convention in formal logic for converting informal statements. I'd like to see the rule that says 'the all is implied' that you didn't just make up on the spot.
I'm sorry but Orangey is absolutely correct.
'women love apples' = 'for all x if x is a woman then x loves apples'

'some women love apples' would be 'there is an x such that x is a woman and x loves apples'

*in standard formal logic.

Great thread btw; the comic highlight was in the second act when typology was brought into it.

3. Originally Posted by The Outsider
I'm sorry but Orangey is absolutely correct.
'women love apples' = 'for all x if x is a woman then x loves apples'
If it's meant to say that, yes.

Taking an already known syntax such as 'for all x if x is a woman then x loves apples' and translating it to 'women love apples' and therefore presuming that the process works inversely based on that knowledge is NOT the same as taking random phrase by random person 'women love apples' and formalizing without knowing their intent.

I'd say you're hard pressed to do this operation if you took this off a magazine cover, for example.

This is presuming what someone intends to say when there exists an alternate usage.

4. Originally Posted by sprinkles
If it's meant to say that, yes.

Taking an already known syntax such as 'for all x if x is a woman then x loves apples' and translating it to 'women love apples' and therefore presuming that the process works inversely based on that knowledge is NOT the same as taking random phrase by random person 'women love apples' and formalizing without knowing their intent.

I'd say you're hard pressed to do this operation if you took this off a magazine cover, for example.

This is presuming what someone intends to say when there exists an alternate usage.
The alternate usage would be incompatible with the rules of formal logic.

5. Originally Posted by The Outsider
The alternate usage would be incompatible with the rules of formal logic.
The original statement was not formal logic. We're going from colloquial to formal. What you're saying applies by assuming that the formal meaning must already be the one that was intended before the conversion - it may not be. Therefore this is hawking over syntax.

6. Originally Posted by sprinkles
The original statement was not formal logic. We're going from colloquial to formal. What you're saying applies by assuming that the formal meaning must already be the one that was intended before the conversion - it may not be. Therefore this is hawking over syntax.
I get your point, but as far as logic goes, the natural language statement - if it has the intended meaning that you are implying - would have to be reworded to reflect that before any logical operations are done with it.

The sentence 'women love apples' is still translated using a universal quantifier.

7. Originally Posted by The Outsider
I get your point, but as far as logic goes, the natural language statement - if it has the intended meaning that you are implying - would have to be reworded to reflect that before any logical operations are done with it.

The sentence 'women love apples' is still translated using a universal quantifier.
Well yeah. That's sort of what greenfairy did. This is really a minor detail that doesn't detract from what greenfairy was trying to say.

I think the point that greenfairy was trying to get across is that there can be overlapping values, in response to Pseudo's talk about absolute and binary truths. Maybe it wasn't executed perfectly, but I understood it.

But yes, I do get that 'women love apples' probably should be (∀x)(Wx → Ax) and not (∃x)(Wx ∧ Ax)

8. Originally Posted by sprinkles
Well yeah. That's sort of what greenfairy did. This is really a minor detail that doesn't detract from what greenfairy was trying to say.

I think the point that greenfairy was trying to get across is that there can be overlapping values, in response to Pseudo's talk about absolute and binary truths. Maybe it wasn't executed perfectly, but I understood it.

But yes, I do get that 'women love apples' probably should be (∀x)(Wx ∧ Ax) and not (∃x)(Wx ∧ Ax)
Yeah, I don't even know the context. I just break into threads and spoil the fun.
And on that note, your statement with the universal quantifier is currently saying that all things are women and all things love apples. A conditional would be more appropriate there.

9. Originally Posted by The Outsider
Yeah, I don't even know the context. I just break into threads and spoil the fun.
And on that note, your statement with the universal quantifier is currently saying that all things are women and all things love apples. A conditional would be more appropriate there.
Yeah I caught that and edited it :P

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO