Wacek Kusnierczyk schrieb:
> Ed Barkmeyer wrote:
>> First rule: when discoursing with logicians remember that "all"
>> and "always" are reserved words. ;-) In logic, "not 100%" is
>> the *opposite* of "all". A single counterexample is a disproof.
> Second rule: 'opposite' is a bit vague, avoid using it unless you're its
> meaning is clear.
> 'opposite to all' might mean:
> - not all (a contradiction)
> - none (a contrary)
I would say: use it, but use John Sowa's 'adjectivisation rule', too.
Then you can speak fluently of 'contradictory opposites' and 'contrary
> as in:
> All X are Y is contradiction to Some X are not Y
> All X are Y is contrary to No X are Y
> see 'square of opposition' in a dictionary of philosophy, or the like.
> (interestingly, contraries can both be false, but of two contradicting
> statements, one must be false and the other true.)
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
IFOMIS, Saarland University
home site: http://ifomis.org/
personal home site:
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (06)