>I'm guessing that would mean ¬B⇒¬A.
I made a mistake by getting married when I was 20. That marriage didn't last but you reminded me of a conversation that I had with that wife. Once she said, "If I'm not right I don't argue..." I replied, "That's logically equivalent to, 'If I argue I'm right' " She said, "The problem with you is you're too logical." A few years later I married my current wife, who is a humanist. We've been happily married ever since. Frank --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 12:42 PM glen <[email protected]> wrote: > Yeah, I know. But your answers were inadequate for answering Eric's > question, without exhibiting that you were answering the question. I.e. you > weren't answering the question, except by implied omission ... aka *lying* > by omission. >8^D > > It's (badly) analogous to if your S.O. asks you whether you're having an > affair with a particular person. And you answer: "No, I'm not having an > affair with *that* particular person." Sure, we all know ¬(A⇒B)⇒A⋀¬B. But > that's not what gpt said, which was "the formula on the right is true > *only* if the formula on the left is true". I'm guessing that would mean > ¬B⇒¬A. And I'm further guessing the only way we can get to that is if we > swap out the ⇒ with a ⇔ in the discussed premise. > > Brevity is your enemy. Previously, I asked gpt to contrast Richard Rorty > and CS Peirce. It gave me this super simplified answer that woefully > misrepresented both. They've weighted ChatGPT (at least) so heavily to > brevity and summarization that the summaries are either flat out wrong, or > (like Frank did here) fail to target the subject being discussed entirely. > I think they could compensate by weighting rare tokens more heavily than > common tokens. I'm sure they already do that to some extent. But whatever > methods they're using aren't working very well. > > I want to say something about how LLMs might be able to get at *a* logic > (or a finite number of logics) exhibited in our text(s), but won't be able > to get at *theories* of logics, the kind of distinction Beall (via Weber) > seems to be making in that book review. Whether one is tolerant of > inconsistency (like me) or insists on metalanguages for resolving paradox > is irrelevant. What matters is that a bot that can use either method will > outperform one that can't. But, of course, I shouldn't say anthing of that > sort, because I'll demonstrate my incompetence even more than I already > have. What's the old saying? It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear > stupid than to open it and show everyone you are stupid? Oh well. I guess > that ship's sailed. 8^D > > On 12/27/22 11:04, Frank Wimberly wrote: > > My definition is consistent with that. The only state of affairs > excluded by A implies B is A is true and B is not. > > > > The truth table for A implies B is: > > > > A B A implies B > > > > T T T > > T F F > > F T T > > F F T > > > > > > --- > > Frank C. Wimberly > > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, > > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > > > 505 670-9918 > > Santa Fe, NM > > > > On Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 10:57 AM glen <[email protected] <mailto: > [email protected]>> wrote: > > > > Well, I'm probably confused because I'm trying (and failing) to read > this at the moment: > > > > Paradoxes and Inconsistent Mathematics > > https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/paradoxes-and-inconsistent-mathematics/ > <https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/paradoxes-and-inconsistent-mathematics/> > > > > But I'm on Eric's side, here. "A⇒B" does not mean B can only be true > when/if A is true. A can be false while B is true. But when A is true, B > must also be true. So the set of conditions where B obtains can be larger > than the set of conditions where A obtains. > > > > > > On 12/27/22 09:22, Frank Wimberly wrote: > > > A implies B is false iff A is true and B is false. > > > > > > --- > > > Frank C. Wimberly > > > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, > > > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > > > > > 505 670-9918 > > > Santa Fe, NM > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 10:15 AM David Eric Smith < > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto: > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: > > > > > > Are you sure Frank? > > > > > > The sentence from gtp that I highlight said: > > > > > >> "⊃" is the logical symbol for "implies." It is used to > form conditional statements in which the formula on the right is true only > if the formula on the left is true. > > > > > > As I understand “implies” (or just the conditional if A then > B), it means that the formula on the right is true _if_ the formula on the > left is true. Not “only if” as gtp is quoted to say above. Correct would > be “the formula on the right is _false_ _only if_ the formula on the left > is _false_. Conditional doesn’t say anything about whether B is true or > false if A is not true. > > > > > > Eric > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Dec 27, 2022, at 11:46 AM, Frank Wimberly < > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto: > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: > > >> > > >> I've taken courses in formal logic at multiple levels. All > that notation is familiar and the explanation seems correct if vacuous. > > >> > > >> --- > > >> Frank C. Wimberly > > >> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, > > >> Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > >> > > >> 505 670-9918 > > >> Santa Fe, NM > > >> > > >> On Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 3:19 AM David Eric Smith < > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto: > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: > > >> > > >> Interesting. Lack of global awareness duly noted. > > >> > > >> But also, can you check me on this?: > > >> > > >> > On Dec 26, 2022, at 7:21 PM, glen < > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto: > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > This exchange was interesting. I've never seen ⊃° used. > > >> > > > >> > ⋄⋄⋄⋄⋄⋄⋄⋄⋄⋄⋄⋄⋄⋄⋄⋄⋄⋄⋄⋄⋄⋄⋄⋄⋄⋄ > > >> > me: What is the difference between ⊃ and ⊢. > > >> > > > >> > gpt: The symbol "⊃" is the logical symbol for > "implies." It is used to form conditional statements in which the formula > on the right is true only if the formula on the left is true. For example, > the formula "A ⊃ B" can be read as "A implies B," and it means that if A is > true, then B must also be true. > > >> > > >> Am I somehow blanking on ordinary sign-flips, or > mistaking left and right? > > >> > > >> Seems B Is true _if_ A is true. B is false _only if_ A > is false == If A is true, then B must also be true. > > >> > > >> Given that English is not ensured to have any global > internal logical consistency, one can see making sentences that don’t close > internally. But in areas where English is capable of being used with > internal consistency, I am surprised to see an “only if” transposed with an > “if” everywhere. Did I completely misunderstand what “implies” means? > > >> > > >> > > >> On all this I feel completely exposed: I thought I > remembered from Quine’s little book on propositional calculus that > “implies” isn’t even an elementary operator; only enters in a context like > modus ponens for proofs. In first-order logic one was supposed to write > expressions such as “B or not(A)” to mean “if A then B”. And there was > some other symbol (even simpler than the entails) for that conditional. > > >> > > >> Eric > > -- > ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ > > -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
