4 ms·

can you back this up with sources or more than one example? I am referring to the case x=3 y=3 of the assertion 4.442

gjm11 6y ago
There is no x nor y in 4.442. I have two guesses at what you might mean. 1. Maybe you're referring to the last sentence "(The number of places in the left-hand pair of brackets is determined by the number of terms in the right-hand pair.)" and saying: haha, if the number of terms in the right-hand pair is 3 then the number of places in the left-hand pair is 8, not 3. But Wittgenstein doesn't say "is equal to", he says "is determined by", and that's correct. 2. Maybe you're referring to the concrete truth-table, where if you label its rows and columns 1,2,3 etc., the slot with x=y=3 is left blank. That's a weird notational choice but I'm pretty sure it isn't a mistake. Look at 4.44: "The sign that results from correlating the mark 'T' with truth-possibilities is a propositional sign." Wittgenstein's being terse as usual, but I think what he means is that when reading one of these truth-tables what we need to know is where the Ts are. For a bit more explicitness, look further back at 4.43: "We can express agreement with truth-possibilities by correlating the mark 'T' (true) with them in the schema. The absence of this mark means disagreement." (Emphasis mine.) So the right-hand column of his truth tables uses T to mean that the corresponding proposition is true, and the absence of a T to mean that it's false. Which is exactly what he does in 4.442. He's clearly aware that there's a cost in clarity, which is why after writing it as "(TT-T)(p,q)" he says: "or more explicitly (TTFT)(p,q)". Either way, I think you're wrong to characterize this as a mistake.
- The_rationalist 6y ago
  I agree
  - 74d-fe6-2c6 6y ago
    well, that escalated quickly ... :D
- davidivadavid 6y ago
  I would always give Wittgenstein the benefit of the doubt on such relatively trivial things given 1) this work was checked thoroughly by the likes of Bertrand Russell 2) the topic has evolved considerably over the last ~100 years, or at least the language and notation used to talk about it, which may lead to misunderstandings for today's readers.

There is no x nor y in 4.442. I have two guesses at what you might mean. 1. Maybe you're referring to the last sentence "(The number of places in the left-hand pair of brackets is determined by the number of terms in the right-hand pair.)" and saying: haha, if the number of terms in the right-hand pair is 3 then the number of places in the left-hand pair is 8, not 3. But Wittgenstein doesn't say "is equal to", he says "is determined by", and that's correct. 2. Maybe you're referring to the concrete truth-table, where if you label its rows and columns 1,2,3 etc., the slot with x=y=3 is left blank. That's a weird notational choice but I'm pretty sure it isn't a mistake. Look at 4.44: "The sign that results from correlating the mark 'T' with truth-possibilities is a propositional sign." Wittgenstein's being terse as usual, but I think what he means is that when reading one of these truth-tables what we need to know is where the Ts are. For a bit more explicitness, look further back at 4.43: "We can express agreement with truth-possibilities by correlating the mark 'T' (true) with them in the schema. The absence of this mark means disagreement." (Emphasis mine.) So the right-hand column of his truth tables uses T to mean that the corresponding proposition is true, and the absence of a T to mean that it's false. Which is exactly what he does in 4.442. He's clearly aware that there's a cost in clarity, which is why after writing it as "(TT-T)(p,q)" he says: "or more explicitly (TTFT)(p,q)". Either way, I think you're wrong to characterize this as a mistake.

The_rationalist 6y ago
I agree
- 74d-fe6-2c6 6y ago
  well, that escalated quickly ... :D
davidivadavid 6y ago
I would always give Wittgenstein the benefit of the doubt on such relatively trivial things given 1) this work was checked thoroughly by the likes of Bertrand Russell 2) the topic has evolved considerably over the last ~100 years, or at least the language and notation used to talk about it, which may lead to misunderstandings for today's readers.