'When Are Relations Neither True Nor False?
in [Math]
|
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 15 Feb 2010 23:43 Newberry <newberryxy(a)gmail.com> writes: > What do you mean by "as usually understood"? What do you find unclear about the phrase? > Does the logic of presuppositions fall in the category "as usually > understood"? No logic in any technical sense is involved in the observation that on an ordinary understanding it makes no sense to say of a relation that it is or is not true. Sentences, statements, propositions, claims, are what we usually take to be true or false, not relations. -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: Nam Nguyen on 16 Feb 2010 01:49 Aatu Koskensilta wrote: > Newberry <newberryxy(a)gmail.com> writes: > >> What do you mean by "as usually understood"? > > What do you find unclear about the phrase? > >> Does the logic of presuppositions fall in the category "as usually >> understood"? > > No logic in any technical sense is involved in the observation that on > an ordinary understanding it makes no sense to say of a relation that it > is or is not true. > Sentences, statements, propositions, claims, are what > we usually take to be true or false, not relations. > Right. But this seems very pedantic to me. Under the circumstances people would understand that it's a relation that would make formulas asserting something about the relation as true or false. (E.g. the formula xRy could be read as x is related to y). So one doesn't have to make a huge distinction given certain context, and I don't think in the conversations so far there's any confusions about the two. If one would really like for me to re-phrase my paragraph to make it a bit clearer I would. But I don't think that would change the key points/arguments being discussed.
From: Marshall on 16 Feb 2010 12:11 On Feb 15, 10:49 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > Aatu Koskensilta wrote: > > Newberry <newberr...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > >> What do you mean by "as usually understood"? > > > What do you find unclear about the phrase? > > >> Does the logic of presuppositions fall in the category "as usually > >> understood"? > > > No logic in any technical sense is involved in the observation that on > > an ordinary understanding it makes no sense to say of a relation that it > > is or is not true. > > Sentences, statements, propositions, claims, are what > > we usually take to be true or false, not relations. > > Right. But this seems very pedantic to me. Under the circumstances > people would understand that it's a relation that would make formulas > asserting something about the relation as true or false. (E.g. the formula > xRy could be read as x is related to y). It is the difference between asking if "2<3" is true or not, and asking if "<" is true or not. Is it pedantic to point out that it is wacky to ask if "<" is true or not? I would say not. Marshall
From: spudnik on 16 Feb 2010 12:39 yeah, but "R" you lying about it, now? > It is the difference between asking if "2<3" is true or not, and > asking if "<" is true or not. Is it pedantic to point out that it is > wacky to ask if "<" is true or not? I would say not. thus: sea-level is not rising, globally -- http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/MornerInterview.pdf -- and warming is mostly equatorial. however, there is massive loss of soil, and that might change *relative* sea- level, in some locations, as well as dysplace some sea! thus quoth: Lets take a look at the complexity of polar bear life. First, the polar bear has been around for about 250,000 years, having survived both an Ice Age, and the last Interglacial period (130,000 years ago), when there was virtually no ice at the North Pole. Clearly, polar bears have adapted to the changing environment, as evidenced by their presence today. (This fact alone makes the polar bear smarter than Al Gore and the other global warming alarmists. Perhaps the polar bear survived the last Interglacial because it did not have computer climate models that said polar bears should not have survived!) http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GW_polarbears.pdf http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Global_Warming.html > It amuses me that the people who want "change" are so afraid of change--God > forbid that the seal level rise two inches. thus: the photographic record that I saw, in some rather eclectic compendium of Einsteinmania, seemed to show quite a "bending" effect, I must say; not that the usual interpretation is correct, though. Nude Scientist said: > > "Enter another piece of luck for Einstein. We now know that the light- > > bending effect was actually too small for Eddington to have discerned --Another Flower for Einstein: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/Electrodynamics.html --les OEuvres! http://wlym.com --Stop Cheeny, Rice & the ICC in Sudan; no more Anglo-american quagmires! http://larouchepub.com/pr/2010/100204rice
From: Newberry on 16 Feb 2010 23:59
On Feb 15, 8:43 pm, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote: > Newberry <newberr...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > What do you mean by "as usually understood"? > > What do you find unclear about the phrase? > > > Does the logic of presuppositions fall in the category "as usually > > understood"? > > No logic in any technical sense is involved in the observation that on > an ordinary understanding it makes no sense to say of a relation that it > is or is not true. Sentences, statements, propositions, claims, are what > we usually take to be true or false, not relations. > Are you saying that (x)Px can be true or false but (x)(y)Pxy cannot? |