4 ms·
it's also underspecified if the desired answer is "not A implies not B". there are an infinitude of examples of that particular conclusion being false in the re
by clairity 6y ago
it's also underspecified if the desired answer is "not A implies not B". there are an infinitude of examples of that particular conclusion being false in the real world.
- seanwilson 6y agoI think you're demonstrating my point. It sounds like you're going with what you intuitively think "implies" must mean like you would if you saw it written in a news article, when instead the article is using a formal logic definition that would appear appears often in logic/math proofs. You really need to look at the truth table the implies operator and read off the answer from there. There'd be no confusion if the operator didn't have a name that roughly matched something we say in casual language.
- clairity 6y agoand that's exactly my point. you need to specify 'formal logic', otherwise, it's underspecified.
- seanwilson 6y agoAh, okay. Yes, it's ambiguous to the point of being a trick question to me.
- clairity 6y agoyah, if the author wants to assert a (perhaps deceptive) pedantic logical conclusion about others, then they should be particularly keen to avoid making pedantic logical errors themselves.