3 ms·

The starting point of the argument is kind of whacky: He claims that the sentence "It is not (an evacuated tunnel)." is somehow the same as "It is a (not evacua

The starting point of the argument is kind of whacky: He claims that the sentence "It is not (an evacuated tunnel)." is somehow the same as "It is a (not evacuated) tunnel.", but he completely ignores the fact that the position of the article that he deliberately changes resolves this ambiguity! So, duh, if you change the sentence it means something different...

XaspR8d 14y ago
I agree the rearrangement of the word order is confusing, but I can also see that Musk could have been saying "it is not an evacuated tunnel". (In fact this is the default interpretation I would probably take...) Listening to the original quote could help us, but ultimately there's no way to know if he's talking about tunnels in general or just evacuated ones.
- anonymouz 14y ago
  But your interpretation is much, much weaker than "a not evacuated tunnel". If it's not a tunnel, it's still not an <i>evacuated</i> tunnel. But if it's "a not evacuated tunnel", then it must be a tunnel. Edit: Actually, I think with the article "an" between the "not" and the adjective, there is no way in English grammar to interpret the "not" to negate only the adjective instead of the whole adjective+noun "evacuated tunnel". Unfortunately I'm neither a native speaker, nor a linguist, so I cannot back it up with anything but feeling for the language and the fact that this is how I always see it used ;).
  - stcredzero 14y ago
    > Edit: Actually, I think with the article "an" between the "not" and the adjective, there is no way in English grammar to interpret the "not" to negate only the adjective instead of the whole adjective+noun "evacuated tunnel". Well, if you add another "only" before "interpret" then you'd be correct. Otherwise, it is open to interpretation either way. Panel 11: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0367.html http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0367.html
stcredzero 14y ago
!(evacuated && tunnel) == (!evacuated && tunnel) Actually, this is true when evacuated is false and tunnel is true.
- anonymouz 14y ago
  Except the second parsing does not seem to be correct under English grammar...
  - stcredzero 14y ago
    I would propose that colloquial English is too imprecise to draw such a precise conclusion, so the better alternative is to express possible interpretations as propositions and see what works.

XaspR8d 14y ago

I agree the rearrangement of the word order is confusing, but I can also see that Musk could have been saying "it is not an evacuated tunnel". (In fact this is the default interpretation I would probably take...) Listening to the original quote could help us, but ultimately there's no way to know if he's talking about tunnels in general or just evacuated ones.

anonymouz 14y ago
But your interpretation is much, much weaker than "a not evacuated tunnel". If it's not a tunnel, it's still not an <i>evacuated</i> tunnel. But if it's "a not evacuated tunnel", then it must be a tunnel. Edit: Actually, I think with the article "an" between the "not" and the adjective, there is no way in English grammar to interpret the "not" to negate only the adjective instead of the whole adjective+noun "evacuated tunnel". Unfortunately I'm neither a native speaker, nor a linguist, so I cannot back it up with anything but feeling for the language and the fact that this is how I always see it used ;).
- stcredzero 14y ago
  > Edit: Actually, I think with the article "an" between the "not" and the adjective, there is no way in English grammar to interpret the "not" to negate only the adjective instead of the whole adjective+noun "evacuated tunnel". Well, if you add another "only" before "interpret" then you'd be correct. Otherwise, it is open to interpretation either way. Panel 11: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0367.html http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0367.html

stcredzero 14y ago

!(evacuated && tunnel) == (!evacuated && tunnel) Actually, this is true when evacuated is false and tunnel is true.

anonymouz 14y ago
Except the second parsing does not seem to be correct under English grammar...
- stcredzero 14y ago
  I would propose that colloquial English is too imprecise to draw such a precise conclusion, so the better alternative is to express possible interpretations as propositions and see what works.