Re: syllogism

From: Wolf Kirchmeir (wwolfkir_at_sympatico.ca)
Date: 10/01/04 

Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 20:33:22 -0400

patty wrote:

[...]
> Well i see where we are stumbling over the rather ambiguous (A-->B). I
> was interpreting it as a first order term with *one* property and no
> quantification (Fa => Fb); but now i see you meant it as (for *all*
> properties F, Fa <=> Fb) which *is* a coding of the definition of the
> identity of a and b:

Sorry, I thought A-->B was a commonly understood representation of "If
A, then B", or "A implies B." I also think that since I used this
symbolism in the context of implication, it should've been clear to you
that's what I intended. I use => only as "equal to or greater than",
never as a logic operator.

Thus A-->B is false if "A true", and "B false", and true otherwise. If
A, B are truthfunctions, then sometimes (A-->B ANDF B-->A), and
sometimes not - depends on A, B. IOW, [(A==B) iff (A-->B AND B-->A] When
it comes to truthfunctions, that does not mean A, B are
indistinguishable. It means that either can be transformed into the
other, but that operation is meaningless unless A, B were
distinguishable to start with. Right?

Whether it makes sense to say that A, B have the same properties in this
case I'll leave to other thinkers. I'm getting leery of the term "property."