Re: Exclusive Disjunction vs False Dilemma

From: Immortalist (Reanimater_2000_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 08/31/04 

Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 21:23:12 -0700

"ZZBunker" <zzbunker@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e4a0829b.0408301535.6317ffe@posting.google.com...
> "Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<2-udnbwYJIF3xK7cRVn-tw@comcast.com>...
> > "ZZBunker" <zzbunker@netscape.net> wrote in message
> > news:e4a0829b.0408292010.5ffc20fd@posting.google.com...
> > > "Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:<m8GdnX2vyNCUl6_cRVn-gg@comcast.com>...
> > > > "ZZBunker" <zzbunker@netscape.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:e4a0829b.0408290537.5a009252@posting.google.com...
> > > > > "Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:<HbOdnZwfYaOp9Y3cRVn-jA@comcast.com>...
> > > > > > In logic, a disjunction is a compound sentence formed by combining
two
> > sentences
> > > > > > (or facts) using the word "or."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A disjunction is true when EITHER or BOTH sentences (or facts) are
true.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Examples:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. "Blue is a color or 7 + 3 = 10."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (T or T = T) Since both facts are true, the entire sentence is true.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. "One hour = exactly 55 minutes or one minute = exactly 60
seconds."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (F or T = T) Since the second fact is true, the entire sentence is
true.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3. "3 + 4 = 6 or all dogs meow."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (F or F = F) Since both facts are false, the entire sentence is
false.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 4. "The word cat has 3 letters or the word dog has four letters."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (T or F = T) Since the first fact is true, the entire sentence is
true.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://regentsprep.org/Regents/math/tables/disjunct.htm
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----------------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Tim" <arg@rag.dsj> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:wZWdnVdodfYdt43cRVn-vQ@edaptivity.com...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "HVAC" <victorallencampbell@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:9757f47e.0408031006.295b65ed@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > > > > > > .......The only voice of reason here?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I mean, I read these fucking kooks and sometimes
> > > > > > > > I wonder if they could possibly hold down a job?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The answer is scary either way.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1) These fucking morons DON'T have a job and I'm supporting
> > > > > > > > their tired asses.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Or
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2) They DO have jobs and I just have to hope that their
> > > > > > > > not important because they can't figure out jack ***.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Think about it...Would you want Twonky anywhere near you?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What type of people did you expect to find at
> > > > > > > alt.alien.research,alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranormal.crop-circles?
> > > > > > > Not to say the alt.philosophy crowd is outstanding in any way
> > > > > > > shape or form. As to your idea about you being the voice of reason
> > > > > > > I'll point out that your disjunction is not valid. Maybe you
> > > > > > > should keep your voice to a whisper.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If the first part of the disjunct is an unknown or has no
justificatory
> > arguments
> > > > > > for its falsity then the second part of the disjunct implies a
necessary
> > > > > > connection that shows the first part to be false if it, the second
part,
> > is
> > true.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alternatively if the first part of the conjunction has no known
> > justification
> > for
> > > > > > its falsity and it doesn't depend upon the second conjunct as grounds
for
> > truth
> > > > > > or falsity then it begs the question.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Finally there must be an argument to show the truth or falsity of
each
> > conjunct
> > > > > > on its own in order to match propositional calculus mathematics.
Hence a
> > logical
> > > > > > disjunction transforms to an exclusive dijunction if there is no
evidence
> > or
> > > > > > argument for the truth or falsity of either disjunct and thus becomes
> > contingent
> > > > > > upon the truth condition of the opposing side?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Exclusive disjunction
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In logic, exclusive disjunction is a logical operator. The exclusive
> > disjunction
> > > > > > of propositions A and B is usually called A xor B, where "xor" stands
for
> > > > > > "exclusive or" and is pronounced "ex-or".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The operation yields the result TRUE when one, and only one, of its
> > operands
> > is
> > > > > > TRUE.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For two inputs A and B, the truth table of the function is as
follows.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A B | A xor B
> > > > > > ----+--------
> > > > > > F F | F
> > > > > > F T | T
> > > > > > T F | T
> > > > > > T T | F
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It can be deduced from this table that
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (A xor B) = (A and not B) or (not A and B) = (A or B) and (not A or
not
> > B) =
> > (A
> > > > > > or B) and not (A and B)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The mathematical symbol for exclusive disjunction varies in the
> > literature.
> > In
> > > > > > addition to the abbreviation "xor", one may see
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * a plus sign ("+") or a plus sign that is modified in some way, such
as
> > being
> > > > > > put inside a circle ("?"); this is used because exclusive disjunction
> > corresponds
> > > > > > to addition modulo 2 if F = 0 and T = 1.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * a vee that is modified in some way, such as being underlined ("?");
> > this is
> > > > > > used because exclusive disjunction is a modification of ordinary
> > (inclusive)
> > > > > > disjunction, which is typically denoted by a vee.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * a caret ("^"), as in the C programming language
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Similarly, different textual notations are used, including "EOR"
(with
> > the
> > same
> > > > > > expansion as "xor") and "orr" (modelled on iff, of which it is the
> > negative).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Binary values xor'ed by themselves are always zero. In some computer
> > > > > > architectures, it is faster to store a zero in a register by xor'ing
the
> > value
> > > > > > with itself instead of loading and storing the value zero. Thus, on
some
> > computer
> > > > > > architectures, xor'ing values with themselves is a common
optimization.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The xor operation is sometimes used as a simple mixing function in
> > cryptography,
> > > > > > for example, with one-time pad or Feistel network systems.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.fact-index.com/e/ex/exclusive_disjunction.html
> > > > > > http://www.fact-index.com/l/lo/logical_disjunction.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > That's not true though. Since one of the main points
> > > > > of Cantor's theorem is to show that XOR is
> > > > > a fallacy of mathematics, not logic.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since it's really impossible for there to be anything
> > > > > true or false about XOR, since it's not really
> > > > > used by cryptographers, it was invented by cryptographers.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I use it when I desire to make a distinction between AND/OR and
EITHER/OR.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > False Dilemma
> > > > >
> > > > > False Dilemma itself it totally fallacious reasoning,
> > > > > and the source of the error. Since Senatorial
> > > > > statements aren't examples of false dilemma,
> > > > > given that Senators invented false dilemma,
> > > > > with their Logic-101 failure to understand
> > > > > that a context is not a dilemma, it's a quandary.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Either 1+1=4 or 1+1=12.
> > >
> > > Note, that the "dilemma" is not produced by the
> > > conjunction "or". It is produced by the
> > > adjective "Either", which is used to
> > > modify the "or" into "xor".
> > >
> > > So you could just have wrote:
> > >
> > > (1+1=4) xor (1+1=12)
> > >
> > > Which is false, as immediately determined
> > > by the xor Truth Table.
> > >
> >
> > So if we would resolve an ambiguity in;
> >
> > 1+1=4 or 1+1=12
> >
> > We could devise two tests; the disjunction and conjunction procedures.
> >
> > If 1+1=4 then 1+1~=12 (~ means NOT)
> > Then; ~1+1=4 then 1+1=12
> >
> > {to cumbersome a procedure}
> >
> > 1+1=4 AND 1+1=12
> >
> > THis of course in those instances when truth table have not enough
information to
> > determine truth or falsity with.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > 1+1=4 is false therefore 1+1=12 is true?
> > >
> > > But, this immediately not a dilemma, it's a paradox.
> > > Since it's not a first-order statement, which dilemmas are.
> >
> > Do you mean it a strange case of something being sufficient but not
necessary?
>
> No I mean it the very unstrange case of philosphers
> and truth tables being quite useless in the parsing
> of English Sentences.
>

For deductive arguments they work perfectly. But for inductive arguments there
are problems.

How to translate common language arguments into symbolic logic;
http://tinyurl.com/ufti
http://www.nku.edu/~garns/165/ppt6_1.html
http://www2.sjsu.edu/faculty/carranza/symbolic.htm
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/log/terms3.htm
http://www.jgsee.kmutt.ac.th/exell/Logic/Logic41.htm
http://duniho.com/fergus/academic/slia/MAIN.html
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/phil/logic3/welcome.htm

> Since "therefore" has been proven by Kant to be a somewhat
> stupid thing for scientists to fool around with. Since it's
> origins can be traced back to Aristotle. Who was one
> of the few mathematicians that ever lived that
> knew how to use the device.
>
> Since he was the first to prove that it has nothing
> to do with idiot mathematicians and their "necessity".

Would Kant conclude, in a therefore fashion, an argument about therefore, with a
therefore or a henceforth, even a then? Did people do that before Aristotle or
did Aristotle tag line it in a popular way?

Quantcast