Woman and man's highest calling- Cherokee proverb

[sprinkles]

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.

 

[The Outsider]

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.

 

[sprinkles]

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.

 

[The Outsider]

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.

 

[sprinkles]

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.

 

[The Outsider]

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.

 

[sprinkles]

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)

 

[The Outsider]

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.

 

[sprinkles]

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

 

[Ginkgo]

 

[sprinkles]

Great summary!

 

[Salomé]

I didn't ask for it in this thread. It's easy, just go to my profile, click on started threads, and you'll find the relevant ones near the top. I don't want to bring feedback on my type into every discussion because that would be selfish and egocentric, and would bore everyone.

And there is nothing boring or egocentric about this thread...
Like I said, why should I go to all that trouble to do you a favour? I'm not interested in your type, anyway.
I'm just (one of many) pointing out the untruthfulness of your claim to excel in logic.

You can't really believe you know the full picture of what goes on inside my head.

I'm rather relieved about that.

Consider the idea that trees have spirits. Can we prove this? No. Can we prove it is not true? No.

I can't prove you're not an idiot, is that a good reason for me to believe you are?

The burden of proof is always on the person making nonsensical claims.

a tree doesn't have a spirit.

You know you've entered the twilight zone when Victor is the one making sense.

seeing ambiguity where it may not be does not validate the claim that I completely ignore logic, or that I employed a fallacy.

Yes. It does.

 

[sprinkles]

You know you've entered the twilight zone when Victor is the one making sense.

Actually no, not from the route that Victor took that depends on a given definition for 'spirit'.

It makes about as much sense as my response to it. It's like saying a Force user can't choke you if you don't have a throat.

Or that a wizard can't cast without mana. What's the problem with that picture?

 

[Salomé]

That's why I quoted the conclusion and not the premises.

You aren't going to drag me into one of your head-fucking abuses of logic! Evil sprinkly thing.

 

[sprinkles]

That's why I quoted the conclusion and not the premises.

Oh, so that's ok to do now? I hadn't heard.

You aren't going to drag me into one of your head-fucking abuses of logic! Evil sprinkly thing.

Of course not. I'm way over here and I don't have psychic powers of suggestion (much to my dismay)

 

[Orangey]

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.


Yes, that much is true.

I'd like to know how "women love apples" could possibly mean the same thing as "some women love apples." You'd always have to add a temporal or spatial element to the sentence to do that, which would change the original sentence. Like, "women in Naples love apples," or "women loved apples in the 1960s," or "women loved apples more last year."

Or, as with [MENTION=15773]greenfairy[/MENTION]'s example in which she tried to demonstrate a situation in which they mean the same thing, you'd have to assume that the person saying "women love apples" was not being serious. That is, they either weren't sure of the truth of what they were saying (positing it as a hypothetical or hypothesis, in which case we wouldn't be evaluating the syntax, we'd be waiting for empirical confirmation of its truth value), or they didn't mean it (they were exaggerating, or joking, or whatever other rhetorical ploy) and actually intended to say something along the lines of "some women love apples."

Either way, there is no actual ambiguity when translating the sentence "women love apples" to FOL, even if there may be ambiguity in the intentions of the person who wrote/said it.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=4490]Orangey[/MENTION]

I'd also like to know how one can say "woman love apples" and have it mean "all women love apples" and actually have it be true in the real world.

This is relevant because the whole tangent of discussion was all about what is true in the real world to begin with, not what's true on paper.

But anyway, I already hashed this out with The Outsider

 

[Orangey]

[MENTION=4490]Orangey[/MENTION]

I'd also like to know how one can say "woman love apples" and have it mean "all women love apples" and actually have it be true in the real world.

This is relevant because the whole tangent of discussion was all about what is true in the real world to begin with, not what's true on paper.

But anyway, I already hashed this out with The Outsider

WE WERE TALKING ABOUT FORMAL FIRST ORDER FUCKING LOGIC. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT FORMAL FIRST ORDER FUCKING LOGIC. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT FORMAL FIRST ORDER FUCKING LOGIC.

That's the only reason I responded, because of post #315. See here, ya dingus.

Well, in logic the statement "women love apples" would be read as "some women love apples," and the statement "women hate apples" would be read as "some women hate apples." Hate being the opposite of love, you could say hate= not love, so this would translate as "some women love apples" and "some women do not love apples." These statements do not produce a contradiction. If you were to say all women love apples and all women hate apples, this would be read as "For every x that is a woman, it is the case that this x loves apples" combined with "For every x that is a woman it is the case that this x does not love apples." This would be a contradiction.

Just to nitpick, because I enjoy it.

Goddamn.

It was all sorts of wrong and that's how this whole tangent started.

 

[Salomé]

Oh, so that's ok to do now? I hadn't heard.

Practically de rigueur, in such cases.

It is my pleasure to educate you.

 

[Salomé]

ZOMG! Orangey is so sexy when she blows a fuse.