3
   

In need of some logic help!!!

 
 
jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Dec, 2017 07:29 pm
@engineer,
so MHL = XYZ as long as
If X, then Y
if not X (~X,) then Z
if not Y (~Y,) then not Z (~Z)?
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Dec, 2017 02:20 am
Rolling Eyes
This thread has developed into an Alan Aykborn comedy in which participants are talking past each other bent on their agendas . The religious troll Susmariosep, who has thankfully been dormant for a few months, saw an opportunity to to 'get involved' with the pseudo religious item 3,( whose logical proof is technically trivial). And Jerlands, like on several current threads appears to be here mainly 'for the ride'.

jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Dec, 2017 10:52 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Rolling Eyes
This thread has developed into an Alan Aykborn comedy in which participants are talking past each other bent on their agendas . The religious troll Susmariosep, who has thankfully been dormant for a few months, saw an opportunity to to 'get involved' with the pseudo religious item 3,( whose logical proof is technically trivial). And Jerlands, like on several current threads appears to be here mainly 'for the ride'.

This thread, like all threads are linked inextricably to the body of the cloth.
0 Replies
 
Kolyo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Dec, 2017 11:21 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

This thread has developed into an Alan Aykborn comedy in which participants are talking past each other bent on their agendas .


Whatever.

The real question is:
how can we build up this site to a proper Q&A site?

Got anything to say to that, or are you just going throw more nothing burgers at us?

layman
 
  0  
Reply Sun 31 Dec, 2017 01:47 pm
@engineer,
engineer wrote:

so no matter whether M is true or false, you get to Heaven.


In order to draw this conclusion you must presuppose the validity of the "law of the excluded middle," i.e. that the perv MUST be EITHER M or ~M.

As a practical matter a guy could be amoral, I suppose, i.e., neither morally virtuous nor "not morally virtuous." He just wouldn't fit either category, because morality aint got nuthin to do with anything he does, ya know?
layman
 
  0  
Reply Sun 31 Dec, 2017 02:14 pm
@layman,
Like all propositional logic, the premise contains the conclusion, and the logic can be valid, but unsound.

What this example is saying it that he is guaranteed to get into heaven if he is NOT morally virtuous.

Why? Because then his longings will be satisfied.

Quote:
if he is not morally virtuous, then his longings are satisfied


What is his "longing?" To get into heaven (and possibly other things), that's what.

Quote:
if Bob doesn't achieve heaven, then his longings are not satisfied.


This is tantamount to saying "you are guaranteed to get into heaven if you are not morally virtuous."

engineer
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Dec, 2017 02:41 pm
@layman,
It doesn't say exactly that. When you apply some logic rules to the given statements, it does say that if he is not morally virtuous, he will take some other action to get into heaven, slay a demon or something.

Looking in more detail at the statements...

1) If you are morally virtuous, you get to heaven, great. This does not mean that you can't get to heaven in another manner. If DOG then ANIMAL, doesn't mean that you can't have an animal unless it is a dog.

2) If you are not virtuous, your longings are satisfied. Same as above, this does not mean that your longings can't be satisfied another way, but the third statement says that your longings won't be satisfied if you don't go to heaven, so if you are not virtuous, he must find another way into heaven or the statement given (not virtuous -> longings satisfied) will become invalid. Since that statement is given as valid, he's going to heaven.
layman
 
  0  
Reply Sun 31 Dec, 2017 03:11 pm
@engineer,
engineer wrote:

It doesn't say exactly that. When you apply some logic rules to the given statements, it does say that if he is not morally virtuous, he will take some other action to get into heaven, slay a demon or something.


Naw, not really. Of course that's a possibility, but it doesn't "say" that. In these kinds of exercises it is taken for granted that the references are to what's being set forth, not speculative "facts" which are unstated.

Put another way, it implying that if you are not morally virtuous then (for that reason, and that reason alone) you will satisfy your longings.

But, as I said in a prior post, and as I take you to be saying now, "If" is a different proposition than "if, and ONLY if."

If you are virtuous, then you WILL get to heaven, guaranteed. But that does not say it's the ONLY way you can get to heaven--I've already pointed that out.
layman
 
  0  
Reply Sun 31 Dec, 2017 03:47 pm
@layman,
When you boil it all down, it's saying, don't worry, you will get to heaven, guaranteed (no matter what you do---again assuming that any middle ground is excluded).

1. If you are morally virtuous, you will get to heaven.
2. If you are NOT morally virtuous, you will get to heaven.
3. You must, of necessity, be either 1 or 2.
4. Therefore, you will get to heaven, by hook or crook.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jan, 2018 03:34 am
@Kolyo,
It may be my imagination but the quality of A2K threads seems to have deteriorated over the last ten years. There's no point in me going over the fact that this was a homework request (involving Logic 101) and such requests used to be 'turned round' in a couple of posts. What we seem to have now, can too often involve rambling concoctions of tangential elaboration, interspersed with random side comments from those just looking for somebody to talk to.

You asked for suggestion for Q&A. I say ....
1. Always stick to the context in which a question is framed.
2. Be as brief as possible (nobody likes long posts)
3. Give references to any technicalities which you summarise.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  0  
Reply Mon 1 Jan, 2018 07:13 am
@layman,
layman wrote:

When you boil it all down, it's saying, don't worry, you will get to heaven, guaranteed (no matter what you do---again assuming that any middle ground is excluded).

1. If you are morally virtuous, you will get to heaven.
2. If you are NOT morally virtuous, you will get to heaven.
3. You must, of necessity, be either 1 or 2.
4. Therefore, you will get to heaven, by hook or crook.


#3 is a tacit (unstated) premise in the solution to the problem given, but I have made it explicit. It is taken to be a fundamental law of logic, i.e., the "law of the excluded middle" which dictates that a thing is either M or ~M.

Without this assumption you cannot draw the conclusion (that you will get to heaven).

Now, you can argue that, as a practical matter, this assumption is unwarranted. And you might be right. But, like math (which is just applied logic, really) and geometry, logic has nothing to do with empirical reality. It is a form of strictly a priori reasoning.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Secrets of the New A2K - Discussion by jespah
Malformed Topics! - Discussion by jespah
Why do guys with girlfriends look at me? - Question by jibberjabber
Cycloptichorn is getting married - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
How you can help us with the new site - Discussion by Craven de Kere
Theatre Class - Question by MadisonCup
Little bird died and I don't Know how - Question by leilaxvsf
Tattoo sketch - Question by BrunoMarin
 
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/19/2018 at 09:11:08