Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Logic
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 1 of 110 (203434)
04-28-2005 6:16 PM


Here's a place for logic, that can twist brains. I recommend coffee house.
My answers to htonibutter's topic.
6. Some glasses are breakable things? (illicit process??)
7. All whales are warm blooded animals
8. Nothing can be concluded
9. All pansies are pretty objects.
10. Affirmative conclusion from negative premise. Cannot conclude anything.
Hypothetical syllogisms
11. Invalid, affirming the consequentt.
12. Valid, Affirming the antecedant.
13. Invalid, denying the antecedant.
14. Valid, denying the consequent (but was it negative?)
15. Invalid, denying the antecedant.
16. Invalid, denying the antecedant
17. Valid, Affirming the antecedant
18. Invalid, Affirming the consequent
Questions 6 - 10
Questions 11 - 18
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-28-2005 06:22 PM

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 2 of 110 (203438)
04-28-2005 6:31 PM


Hey Mike Hager, have a go. I know you like logic. You're welcome in my topic. I feel guilty because I've acted belidgerently to you in other topics. You started out here at evc, talking about logic and you were polite. I feel guilty because we had a ding dong and you've been somewhat frustrated/angered ever since. Let's be peaceful now. whadda you say?

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 3 of 110 (203480)
04-28-2005 8:24 PM


Ofcourse, logic, I think, personally, can be useless in ascertaining truth. For example, if you look at those questions, they're in no way certainties. Logic can be valid but untrue, for example;
All turkeys are evolutionists
Dan is a turkey
Dan is an evolutionist.
Here, the conclusion is true, the premises are false and the logic is valid.
But the logic can be valid and the whole structure false.
All pretty girls are called Shraff
Dan is a pretty girl
Dan is called SHraff.
Another
All admin are grumpy
Asgara is an admin
Asgara is grumpy.

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by coffee_addict, posted 04-28-2005 9:00 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 20 by Dan Carroll, posted 05-02-2005 9:43 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 21 by Modulous, posted 05-02-2005 10:20 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 5 of 110 (203759)
04-29-2005 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by coffee_addict
04-28-2005 9:00 PM


Logic can be moot itself
My point is that so often on this site I get people saying to me, "that's a fallacy mike, begging the question", or "that's a fallacy mike, circular". They think that if my argument is invalid, that it is untrue. Not so.
Example;
The bible says God is true, and God is true because the bible tells me so.
It's a circular reasoning which is invalid.
BUT WHAT IF the God of the bible is true???
That means that logic is irrelevant, and it has only told us that despite my argument being circular, it's true anyway.
So then, these fallacies don't really tell us much.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by coffee_addict, posted 04-28-2005 9:00 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by arachnophilia, posted 04-29-2005 6:00 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 9 by mikehager, posted 04-29-2005 10:58 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 17 by coffee_addict, posted 05-01-2005 3:11 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 10-16-2005 11:58 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 7 of 110 (203820)
04-29-2005 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by arachnophilia
04-29-2005 6:00 PM


Logically my position is correct compared to Shraff's
My position of faith is far more logical than the evo atheist/agnostos here. They often remind me that if another religion is true, then mine isn't. Thus the wiz speaks;
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other gods you will understand why I dismiss yours.- Another brick in the wall.
I don't know how many religions thre are. Let's say there are 100 for arguments sake.
I believe in 1, not 99. You believe in 0, not 100.
Only 1 can be true, and 99 not true, or 100 not true.
We cannot know as to whether all are untrue, but LOGICALLY we CAN know that 99 are untrue.
I don't believe in 99. So logically I'm one better off than Shraff.
Well, just for laughs.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-29-2005 08:09 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by arachnophilia, posted 04-29-2005 6:00 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by arachnophilia, posted 04-29-2005 10:11 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 10 by mikehager, posted 04-29-2005 11:33 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 14 of 110 (203913)
04-30-2005 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by mikehager
04-29-2005 11:33 PM


Re: Logically my position is correct compared to Shraff's
So glad you joined in Mike, to correct my rants and modify them into a simple coherent form.
Of the two positions, "All X are F" and "Of X, X-1 are F and 1 is T", which is the more logical? I leave that question to the public, and especially to MTW.
Nice summary. In fairness I'll admitt that I put my own biased spin in one of the premises, because I said that if one is true, the rest are false. Since we have no way of knowing this, my only backing for the premise is that religions are so very subjective, and completely different in what story characters they have. There are so many things to investigate in each religion, that I think it highly likely that many religions would negate other totally different ones. For example, does anyone think the Egyptians would have had a place reserved for Yahweh? One has to depend on the religious texts s/he has been issued, as totally correct in what they are saying, in order that they are possibly true. So I admitt the task is just to daunting, but I think (personally) that if Christ is true, then Allah is negated (if we look completely to the Christian texts as true scripture), and if Buddha is then Spinoza's isn't.etc......., I think we could do this with concentrating on what each religion says, and seeing if their religious texts negate other religions.
Of the two positions, "All X are F" and "Of X, X-1 are F and 1 is T", which is the more logical? I leave that question to the public, and especially to MTW.
Well, I can only say that IMHO the logical position is that 99 are untrue. That's because we can't fully know if 100 are false, (because we then dismiss the possibility of there being an actual true one). But if my premise that "if 1 T then the rest F" is true, then surely logically, we can actually know that 99 are false. But it depends on if my premise is true, which you correctly identified as a premise.
So the fact that we can only know 99 are false depends on whether we think other religions could be true.
I think that all these myths are so complex, that they in no way allow for other myths to be true. How many can really be true if we think about this rationally? Do we expect more than one intelligent agency? I think that to buy into each and every myth would be highly inprobable, as I think people know that they can't all be true. It's a matter of what text speaks reality, and explains reality the best. And another factor, what if a religion which is unknown is true, which isn't a religion? Like God being some kind of gaseous nebula that expelled the universe from the rectum.
(sorry if I babbled a bit there.....I might not get back to you in a while, but you seem to be more logically inclined than me anyway Mike, so you can take over if you want).
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-30-2005 08:28 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by mikehager, posted 04-29-2005 11:33 PM mikehager has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by mikehager, posted 04-30-2005 12:40 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 16 of 110 (204009)
04-30-2005 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by mikehager
04-30-2005 12:40 PM


Re: Logically my position is correct compared to Shraff's
Maybe I'm just not understanding you. You're not arrogant, but use English rather than symbols because I'm not good with symbols I'll be honest (I just find myself having to memorize what symbols are which I find difficult). Also, I don't know all the symbols to logic.
Let's look at my setup a mintue;
I believe in 1, not 99. You believe in 0, not 100
It's a matter of positions, not just premises, IMHO. In that - you think all 100 are false(I'll assume), whereas I believe 99 are false. But we can only have the knowledge that 99 are false.
I think it's reasonable to conclude, from common knowledge, that only one religion can be true(a possibility).
I think it's reasonable to conclude that it's also a possibility that none are true.
However, if we conclude none are true, we negate the possibility that one is true. Also, we know only one could be true, therefore 99 cannot. So it seems that it's a knowledge that 99 are not, but not a knowledge that 100 are not. Do you get me?
Think of it this way now; If 100 are false OR 99 are false, we CAN SAY 99 ARE false, whatever the truth is. But we can't say 100 because that negates the red.
I say "logically" because it's the only conclusion we can make; Let's look at it like this;
Premise; there are 100 religions
Premise; one might be true
Premise; none might be true
conclusion; 99 cannot be true. (even if 100 are untrue, we are limited logically because we can only conclude 99 aren't). Remember, we're only dealing with what we DO/can know (when accounting for ALL possibilities). I hope you understand!
PS. I'll definitely be away for a while, so there's no rush to get back to me, but I might get a chance to read your post.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-30-2005 08:18 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by mikehager, posted 04-30-2005 12:40 PM mikehager has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by arachnophilia, posted 05-02-2005 4:41 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 22 by mikehager, posted 05-02-2005 12:48 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 25 of 110 (252131)
10-16-2005 9:10 AM


LOGIC Riddles
I created this riddle that can be solved using logical deduction alone. I've tested every angle, I think it's my best riddle yet. In my humble opinion, this is quite a tough one unless you've had experience. It requires some common sense aswell.
RIDDLE OF THE HAT THAT FITS
There are five hats in a row, marked 1-5 from left to right.
Goal:Locate the hat that fits you. Declare it's place in the row, it's colour and it's size. (There are 3 sizes of hat; Large, medium and small).
Premisses:
Only one hat fits you.
You are not a large size.
There are no small hats next to the green hat.
The white hat is large.
The pink hat is next to the green hat, on the right of it.
The green hat is not medium.
The blue hat is small.
There are no large hats either end.
The black hat is not medium size.
The white hat is not in the middle.
The blue hat is always leftward of the black hat.
There are no white hats leftward of the middle.
Hint: Just when you think you've finished deducing, have you?
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-17-2005 12:06 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Yaro, posted 10-20-2005 9:58 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 28 of 110 (252168)
10-16-2005 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by kongstad
10-16-2005 9:52 AM


Re: Answer to riddle
That's correct. Well done, logician.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by kongstad, posted 10-16-2005 9:52 AM kongstad has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Ben!, posted 10-17-2005 10:41 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 30 of 110 (252371)
10-17-2005 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Ben!
10-17-2005 10:41 AM


Re: Answer to riddle
Hi Ben, good to hear from you. That's a great picture of Ben and baba having fun.
I have great fun deducing, or failing to deduce. Lol. One can only try eh? Anyway, since I'm not that good a solver of riddles, I've taken to creating them instead.
First here's a helper;
Hint; The order of hats is first established, by forcing them into place. Checking possible positions will help. For example, if you had the green and pink hat in 4th and 5th place, then the white hat couldn't go anywhere, because there are no white hats west of the middle, or in the middle. Checking each position will allow you to infer possible scenarios. It's the Columbo-technique of saying, "if this was the case, then this wouldn't be possible".
As for the sizes; Just remember only one hat will fit you
I'm interested in your other answer, incase my riddle is faulty and there is another possible scenario. In which case I haven't tested it properly. I'm also interested because it's fun seeing how people think, and infer. It doesn't matter if you're wrong, as these riddles are meant to be confusing.
Now here's the full answer, so don't look if you still want to try and solve it;
Kongstad's order was correct. What frightens me is how quickly he solved it, lol. (Green,S),(Pink,M),(Blue,S),(White,L),(Black,S).
Yours is the medium size pink hat position 2, because "no large hat fits you" is one of the premisses. Also, the pink hat must be medium size, otherwise no hat would fit you. It can't be small, or the other small hats would fit, yet only one hat fits.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-17-2005 11:19 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Ben!, posted 10-17-2005 10:41 AM Ben! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Ben!, posted 10-17-2005 11:33 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 32 of 110 (252387)
10-17-2005 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Ben!
10-17-2005 11:33 AM


Re: Answer to riddle
I promise this is my last black box. People will think this is an eyes only topic.
You get a bonus point for not assuming west means left. It turns out you're too logical for my riddle. I didn't want to say "left" of the middle so I said west, because I thought people would think I meant the position next to the middle position, if I said "left". It turns out saying west confused you more than simply saying left. Lol.
I will edit the post containing the riddle.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-17-2005 12:02 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Ben!, posted 10-17-2005 11:33 AM Ben! has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 33 of 110 (253293)
10-20-2005 9:21 AM


SHRAFF HELP
In another thread I used the term tautology.
My feeble young brain wonders whether logically, this is just a vacuous statement, (or can be), or whether it must be classed as the opposite of a contradiction. Which led me to wonder; Would teh opposite of a contradiction be;
" Pie is tastey and not tastey ".
In this case, I suppose my statement qualifies as vacuous, but is it the opposite of a contradiction? *confusion*
can it be said that;
" If there are a hundred earthquakes, my city will fall "..
Is this a tatutology because of the accurate inference? Or is it just a vacuous statement? Or both?
Yes. I need a human to explain, as I find weblinks never suffice my obtuse, literal mind.

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by nator, posted 10-20-2005 9:28 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 37 by nwr, posted 10-20-2005 10:13 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 35 of 110 (253296)
10-20-2005 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by nator
10-20-2005 9:28 AM


Lol, fair enough. If it's any consolation, I don't know any time of day.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by nator, posted 10-20-2005 9:28 AM nator has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 38 of 110 (253318)
10-20-2005 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Yaro
10-20-2005 9:58 AM


Re: LOGIC Riddles
Yaro, you've basically solved it. Just look at the premises about what hat will fit and you'll have it.
Here's the answer to your question if you want to look;
[ For readers; Highligting black boxes gives away answer to riddle]
Your order is correct. Well done. 1 premise is that one hat fits. The pink can't be large, as you're not large, and 2 would fit if it was. If it was small, then the three other small hats would fit. So the pink can only be medium size, if the premise "one hat will fit" is to be correct.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-20-2005 10:34 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Yaro, posted 10-20-2005 9:58 AM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Yaro, posted 10-20-2005 10:36 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 62 by Ben!, posted 10-20-2005 11:51 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 40 of 110 (253322)
10-20-2005 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by nwr
10-20-2005 10:13 AM


Re: SHRAFF HELP
Is my example bad? I just wrote it down quickly as I could.
I know that it has something to do with the inference being correct, but it not illogical, in the sense that it is useless but logically valid. The example I read was;
It either is raining outside or isn't.
Logically okay, but pointless.
What I need to know, is the opposite of a contradiction. Does the "or" in raining outside show this? Surely it would be an "and" in the sense that two opposites are possible.
For example
" Pies are tastey and not tastey " is a true statement, in that, many people find them tastey, and many don't. Is this the opposite of a contradiction?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by nwr, posted 10-20-2005 10:13 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by nwr, posted 10-20-2005 11:49 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024