Ken Hanly
Sat, 01 Jul 2000 15:13:02 -0700
OK. I was responding to the whole set of statements not just yours. I just meant to clarify what's what from my understanding of the issues. You are correct in your critique of Carrol. Rod Hay wrote: > Yes Ken. I misread your post. Sorry. An inconvenient line break. And a too quick >reading and provocation at your claim that my post was mostly wrong. > > Your example is in fact the same example that Carnap uses in his Introduction to >Symbolic Logic. And yes, most tautologies cannot be recognised > immediately. I used the simplest example of a tautology that I could think of. My >point was that the statement that Charles made "all equations are > tautologies" and Carrol's agreement and extension that all syllogism are >tautologies, was confusing the truth value of a statement with the concept > of a tautology. And except for the grammatical error that Charles pointed out, I >don't see how what you wrote contradicts what I wrote. It merely > extends it. > > Carnap: "Sentences which thus are true for all possible value-assignments of their >constituent parts are said to be tautological sentences or > tautologies. > > Ken Hanly wrote: >