Prev: Call for papers: TMFCS-10, USA, July 2010
Next: 3162 x 3.14 = 9928 Re: proof of unique solution to e^(pi)(i) = -1; #498.1 Correcting Math
From: Zerkon on 9 Mar 2010 06:33
On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:04:04 +0000, John Jones wrote:

> A philosopher-logician is a grammarian, a bard. So, as
> philosopher-logicians, tell me what's wrong with this sentence:
>
> "I certainly do not accept the fact that Sir Patrick was influenced by
> the timing of the leadership election."

I do not accept 'as' fact, not 'the' fact. Or if 'the fact' is maintained
then then acceptance by "I" becomes the issue.

I certainly do not accept the fact the earth is round because, you see, I
am a globaphobic.

bardism?..

I
certainly do not
accept
the fact that
Sir Patrick
was
influenced by the timing
of the
leadership election
because
I
do not
accept
time
as
fact.
From: Nic on 9 Mar 2010 07:00

> "I certainly do not accept the fact that Sir Patrick was influenced by
> the timing of the leadership election."

hmmm...it meant that Sir Patrick had his mind on other more important
things on the agenda?

(say will ya give % for the best result, cant do fractions)
From: John Jones on 9 Mar 2010 18:56
John Jones wrote:
> A philosopher-logician is a grammarian, a bard. So, as
> philosopher-logicians, tell me what's wrong with this sentence:
>
> "I certainly do not accept the fact that Sir Patrick was influenced by
> the timing of the leadership election."
>
>

Marshall was right of course. The example was taken from The Cassel
"Guide to common errors in english" by Harry Blamires. There's loads of
other examples.
As Mr Blamires says "If someone does not accept a fact then in their
eyes it is not a fact".

Note an allusion to Godel. By allowing "I certainly do not accept the
fact" then we have generated a Godel-type contradiction. But if we don't
allow it, then the Godel contradiction is avoided.
From: Monsieur Turtoni on 9 Mar 2010 19:30
On Mar 8, 7:04 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> A philosopher-logician is a grammarian, a bard. So, as
> philosopher-logicians, tell me what's wrong with this sentence:
>
> "I certainly do not accept the fact that Sir Patrick was influenced by
> the timing of the leadership election."

Meaning that they don't accept it as a fact that "bah bah bah"

Small grammatical mistake. Big deal. The intent easily understood and
taken for granted.
From: Monsieur Turtoni on 9 Mar 2010 19:35
On Mar 9, 6:56 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> John Jones wrote:
> > A philosopher-logician is a grammarian, a bard. So, as
> > philosopher-logicians, tell me what's wrong with this sentence:
>
> > "I certainly do not accept the fact that Sir Patrick was influenced by
> > the timing of the leadership election."
>
> Marshall was right of course. The example was taken from The Cassel
> "Guide to common errors in english" by Harry Blamires. There's loads of
> other examples.
> As Mr Blamires says "If someone does not accept a fact then in their
> eyes it is not a fact".
>
> Note an allusion to Godel. By allowing "I certainly do not accept the
> fact" then we have generated a Godel-type contradiction. But if we don't
> allow it, then the Godel contradiction is avoided.

Huh? What are you talking about. It's just a contradiction. How can
you not accept a fact?
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Call for papers: TMFCS-10, USA, July 2010
Next: 3162 x 3.14 = 9928 Re: proof of unique solution to e^(pi)(i) = -1; #498.1 Correcting Math