On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 07:35:39 -0700, George Dance wrote:
> On Aug 7, 3:09 am, "Dennis M. Hammes" wrote:
>
>> George Dance wrote:
>>
>> > On Aug 6, 5:48 am, "Kadaitcha Man" wrote:
>>
>> >>Deny and method are terms used in various orders of logic. Given that you
>> >>believe A > B means A is greater than B then it necessarily follows that you
>> >>don't know what the . you're on about.
>>
>> > Not at all. A > B means "A is greater than B." You've confused that
>> > with A -> B.
>>
>> Pisswit. "A < B," "A c B," "A implies B," "A is a proper subset of
>> B," and "All A are B" mean exactly the same thing. Why we can use
>> the "<" on the keyboard in the absence of the other forms.
>
> Most people are perfectly capable of writing A -> B ("A implies B).
>
>> The conversions ("A > B," etc.) are equally true, however there's no
>> key for the converse of "c."
>
> Well, thanks for dredging up what you know, relevant or not. If you
> know enough logic, of course, you'll know that it's not relevant, and
> you might even remember the term for that: a 'red herring.'
>
> 'Attachment' is not a logical relation; it's a physical relation. It
> can be described in a logical calculus (for which you can invent and
> define any symbol you want), but that symbol has to be commutative, as
> attachment is commutative: A is attached to B iff B is attached to A.
>
>> (P.S.: Your use of the little arrow for "implies" is straight out
>> of Bonehead Logic For Colored Shirts With Holy Numbers On Them.)
>
> Most of the people who write in logic also write in mathematics, and
> take care to use different symbol sets. As a poet or retired poet,
> you wouldn't be expected to know that.
"A implies B" is _not_ the same thing or even equivalent to "A includes B"
(Aristotle, the Scholastics and pretty much everyone up to the time of
Boole were confused about that, which sez a lot for the "Age of Reason").
Propositional logic and set theory are two different things.
(Although set theory, like all mathematics and indeed any unconfused
theory, must use logic in its theory.)
--
tinmimus99@...
smeeter 11 or maybe 12
mp 10
mhm 29x13
Hoc est ratio?
< Lucilius
|