Wacek Kusnierczyk wrote: (01)
> 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) (02)
Accepted, albeit grudgingly. Pragma: "If it can confuse an
educated person, then it is not clear." (03)
> see 'square of opposition' in a dictionary of philosophy, or the like. (04)
A 19th century sort of concern that I would have considered
clearly resolved by the following observation:
> (interestingly, contraries can both be false, but of two contradicting
> statements, one must be false and the other true.) (05)
My notion of "opposite" with respect to a proposition p is "not
p". I was unaware that this was "vague" or "ambiguous". There
is no relationship, in general, between (all x)(p x) and
(all x)(not (p x)) (06)
-Ed (07)
--
Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
National Institute of Standards & Technology
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 FAX: +1 301-975-4694 (08)
"The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (010)
|