A modal falacy
in [Logic]
|
Prev: Geometrical Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof #22; 2nd ed; Euclid's Infinitude of Primes Proof corrected
Next: solutions manual to Accounting Information Systems 11E Romney SM
From: Tronscend on 3 Sep 2009 22:33 "LudovicoVan" <julio(a)diegidio.name> skrev i melding news:c2f24455-0557-4dce-8cb8-91faddd8c61f(a)m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... On 2 Sep, 12:27, Frederick Williams <frederick.willia...(a)tesco.net> wrote: > BBC journalists seem not to understand the difference between > > Gordon Brown did not want Magrahi to die in prison. > > and > > Gordon Brown wanted Magrahi to die not-in-prison. There might be a third, I think: Gordon Brown wanted Magrahi not to die in prison. As a foreign English speaker, I'd greatly appreciate if you or anyone else could explain the differences in meaning among them: to me the second doesn't sound proper English at all, while I can't get the difference between the other two... --- Elements: Subject (Gordon Brown) = S Object (Magrahi) = M Actions: want = w Events: die = d Locations: in prison = p Asserted or denied: (nothing) or - 1) SMwdp : GB wanted M to die in prison 2) -S Mwdp : Someone else than GB wanted M to die in prison 3) S -M wdp: GB wanted someone else than M to die in prison 4) SM -wdp: GB did not want (only hope, desire, fear, or: tried to prevent, etc) M dying in prison 5) SMw -dp: GB wanted M to not die when he was in prison (where he wanted him to be) 6) SMwd - p : GB wanted M to die, but not in prison (rather in Winchester Cathedral) etc. etc. up to n) -S -M -w -d -p : (Someone else than GB) (did something else than want) (for someone else than M) (to not die) (when not in prison) (...?). (Probably all mixed up multiple negatives mistakes...) "Gordon Brown wanted Magrahi to die not-in-prison " = 6 "Gordon Brown wanted Magrahi not to die in prison." = 5 while "Gordon Brown did not want Magrahi to die in prison" is ambiguous, and covers them all; at least out of context (which is no good place to analyse meaning). T
From: Frederick Williams on 4 Sep 2009 04:28 Tronscend wrote: > > "LudovicoVan" <julio(a)diegidio.name> skrev i melding > news:c2f24455-0557-4dce-8cb8-91faddd8c61f(a)m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On 2 Sep, 12:27, Frederick Williams <frederick.willia...(a)tesco.net> > wrote: > > > BBC journalists seem not to understand the difference between > > > > Gordon Brown did not want Magrahi to die in prison. > > > > and > > > > Gordon Brown wanted Magrahi to die not-in-prison. ****** > > There might be a third, I think: > > Gordon Brown wanted Magrahi not to die in prison. > > As a foreign English speaker, I'd greatly appreciate if you or anyone > else could explain the differences in meaning among them: to me the > second [that's *****] doesn't sound proper English at all, You're right. -- Which of the seven heavens / Was responsible her smile / Wouldn't be sure but attested / That, whoever it was, a god / Worth kneeling-to for a while / Had tabernacled and rested.
From: David C. Ullrich on 4 Sep 2009 10:04 On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:08:29 +0100, Frederick Williams <frederick.williams2(a)tesco.net> wrote: >"David C. Ullrich" wrote: >> >> On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 12:27:58 +0100, Frederick Williams >> <frederick.williams2(a)tesco.net> wrote: >> >> >BBC journalists seem not to understand the difference between >> > >> > Gordon Brown did not want Magrahi to die in prison. >> > >> >and >> > >> > Gordon Brown wanted Magrahi to die not-in-prison. >> >> What difference? >> >> Of course the two are different a priori. But in fact >> everyone dies, and if we take the fact that everyone >> dies as an axiom then the two statements are equivalent. > >If G.B. has no opinion on the matter then the first will be true and the >second false. > >I don't see what the inevitability of death has to do with it. The >truth values of > > X did not want Y. > >and > > X wanted Y. > >are determined by X's psyche not by the the inevitability or otherwise >of Y. > >I have almost certainly missed your point. Sorry. Ok. If we assume that everyone dies then (i) not (M dies in prison) and (ii) M dies in not-prison are equivalent. If we assume as well that GB is aware that everyone dies and that GB does not want things that are obviously logically impossible then it also follows that GB does not want M to die in prison if and only if GB wants M to die in not-prison. Your complaint was about journalists not seeing the difference. The things I assume above are reasonable things for said jounalist to assume here. David C. Ullrich "Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof. That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to." (John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads." in sci.logic.)
From: Frederick Williams on 4 Sep 2009 10:49 "David C. Ullrich" wrote: > > On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:08:29 +0100, Frederick Williams > <frederick.williams2(a)tesco.net> wrote: > > >"David C. Ullrich" wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 12:27:58 +0100, Frederick Williams > >> <frederick.williams2(a)tesco.net> wrote: > >> > >> >BBC journalists seem not to understand the difference between > >> > > >> > Gordon Brown did not want Magrahi to die in prison. > >> > > >> >and > >> > > >> > Gordon Brown wanted Magrahi to die not-in-prison. > >> > >> What difference? > >> > >> Of course the two are different a priori. But in fact > >> everyone dies, and if we take the fact that everyone > >> dies as an axiom then the two statements are equivalent. > > > >If G.B. has no opinion on the matter then the first will be true and the > >second false. > > > >I don't see what the inevitability of death has to do with it. The > >truth values of > > > > X did not want Y. > > > >and > > > > X wanted Y. > > > >are determined by X's psyche not by the the inevitability or otherwise > >of Y. > > > >I have almost certainly missed your point. Sorry. > > Ok. If we assume that everyone dies then > > (i) not (M dies in prison) > > and > > (ii) M dies in not-prison > > are equivalent. > > If we assume as well that GB is aware that everyone dies > and that GB does not want things that are obviously > logically impossible then it also follows that GB does > not want M to die in prison if and only if GB wants > M to die in not-prison. > > Your complaint was about journalists not seeing the > difference. The things I assume above are reasonable > things for said jounalist to assume here. Ok, I accept what you say. Thank you for the explanation. -- Which of the seven heavens / Was responsible her smile / Wouldn't be sure but attested / That, whoever it was, a god / Worth kneeling-to for a while / Had tabernacled and rested.
From: John Jones on 4 Sep 2009 19:23
Frederick Williams wrote: > BBC journalists seem not to understand the difference between > > Gordon Brown did not want Magrahi to die in prison. > > and > > Gordon Brown wanted Magrahi to die not-in-prison. > The Brits know he's innocent. The evidence and trial is acknowledged in the uK to be flimsey, even a set up. That's why the Americans won't get his blood. |