Re: Aristotle's horse in De Morgan's harness.
From: Owen (oorionus_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 11/20/04
- Next message: Owen: "Re: Aristotle's horse in De Morgan's harness."
- Previous message: David Bernier: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- In reply to: Kenneth Doyle: "Aristotle's horse in De Morgan's harness."
- Next in thread: Owen: "Re: Aristotle's horse in De Morgan's harness."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 08:43:38 -0500
"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95A6F3D3DDE46nobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5...
> http://www.math.psu.edu/simpson/papers/philmath/node9.html
>
> "... the 19th century logician Augustus DeMorgan noted that the
inference
> all horses are animals,
> therefore, the head of a horse is the head of an animal
>
> is beyond the reach of Aristotelean logic. Yet this same inference may
be
> paraphrased as 'if all horses are animals, then for all x, if x is the
head
> of some horse then x is the head of some animal.'"
" .. and this corresponds to a logically valid formula
of the predicate calculus. Here H, A, R denote ``is a horse'', ``is an
animal'', ``is the head of'', respectively. Thus DeMorgan's conclusion is
indeed a logical consequence of his premise."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently Bertrand Russell did not agree.
See: Principia Mathematica, page 291.
>... the 19th century logician Augustus DeMorgan noted that the inference
> all horses are animals,
> therefore, the head of a horse is the head of an animal
> is beyond the reach of Aristotelean logic.
"It must be confessed that this was a merit in Aristotle's logic, since
the proposed inference is fallacious without the added premiss "E!(the head
of the horse in question)". E.g. it does not hold for an oyster or a hydra,
But with the addition E!R'y , the above gives an important and common type
of asyllogistic inference."
Owen
>
>
> Lacking an academic grounding in aristotlean logic, I'm guessing that in
> this context, "beyond the reach" in the above quote is merely a matter
of
> form. Certainly, the inference seems valid but the aristotlean
syllogism
> has no power to express it(?). If someone out there happens to have
done a
> recent essay on this, I'd be interested to read it.
>
> I'm struggling at the moment, to aquire the discipline to ignore what
seems
> intuitively obvious in order to learn the formal limitations of logical
> systems; it's an interesting exercise.
begin 666 img38.gif
M1TE&.#EAT $B`.,``````*>GIYN;FX^/CX.#@W=W=VMK:U]?7[*RLE145$A(
M2#P\/# P,"0D)!@8& P,#"'Y! $```@`+ ````#0`2(`0 3^$,E)J[TXZ\V[
M_V HCF1IGFBJKFSK4DHB!4VE$%YL*?4D`#C0`4 D/FX=04'!\"P$E*>P:$2&
M= B:+<C!2KP6``@L2?0D/Y7X8.CP*#_N1CJA5X;4H]PFPXAS?11F<'\H:VT>
M2DQ.4'6-$G8(D18+>P@/CV4`#PT*%Y42`T4-!P@-#@`.9YJ<GDD)#H@4! I$
M`Q('J)NLG7<%% >_)0*PLDZ6F# /!PP`391RH!(/5$03"9N]GT&B1 ZE" 5$
M"0$("LO-S[RN%0,-`*1+WK<3W?"EIZFK"-BMOL#"-A"+A4':I6J%^FFK(,W>
M-PGB`) SA\Z9H&SL*+B[)R\5/0G^M&SATO5@W;\)P0"J?,&RI<N7,&/*G$FS
MILV;.'/JW,FSI\^?0%44"&1B:- /&<WQ-(J"*42B1:$>O6+#A=.H4T4DW5J5
M0R%<OP(L0,//58*D"+Z6*4D!B(^R9=!N4'N1"@XH9^-64$N71-\,:E.*I00N
MS%X-8O":E4L7%LH'Y1@65JRW0H #`1X(4Y(A`=L);LGFA=OV,(B^?R4D)CVZ
M= 7'N" 3?CNZ]83+F3<'O(#-+@+*I$&;%NY:0X&/19%GQ6 @LH3F.X^GD#Z!
M>E/ERSU G[!]A?7DV3]T1S"^O//PZ-.K7\^^O?OW\./+GT^_! ,<"\Y#TI_A
M/C #J4#^1DP##SQ@C$L!."#5!0IDTF!._N5'"7\8^#>!A;I0$8*%SXESP#L`
M+( ="0T,,( #'+ 18 `#%GC@#@YF<@*&"(' (7D>@BBB"B6>"$*""\((0XQ#
MSO4(`8$4``XL9S"@'P`R_F!,`NKPH\J%%%Z0X&X6#%#.$-=<*8&3$Q!0I9DH
M;'G:D4D6UD\N^Z25"92 E2$F`F3N)6,`H0V0`%%OBLDDEA<P$ @VI%P@I2!5
M#CJF<VB66>4&:H8AHVN.XOGDGGW^>=$R@MZ99P6&7G-/!EXB`*:=34)ZYJNS
M3#I<'0%,"D!D=,Z:!0!3RGJK:I=J8,!8O.TERZ]R5K!/G"/^#'O:A+(.P-:E
M?"$&&J[!JL6G+-AT.>VUP!H&R0(&!#L#KXR&@:VR[(I'K*[#(9MK<>=R2Y>T
M9*FV[G +D&MN&<:"FRP%R[8[`;.WR6K9,@C0@D&M(616BL,P2=QP4@04UK#&
M-$&<9I4>9V QQ5HJ'#'#)+\T,L8:9ZQ"R ^C+%<6)O\HL\HWS]+RSCK7Y_//
M0 <M]-!$%VWTT4@GK?323#?M]--01RWUU%17;?75&@C0`(M:?J"U<^<%D"5,
M5S&GL0$<U_1UL&-;\+4/6V=QPMLQ26L@!V&W70':%/"]PMMZ"Q1WW2Z&4/8%
M?C]W]N(<^$C>@0/,W"6*>R,K@8+^-'U8,QP9"2#Y2XX;`/GG&E$>BNGB>N X
M!>(X5P#J)OSQF;"6(X Y!YYSKL+JJ3<.>SB6OZ[&-$(TL+D/G2>ONP8-<%$+
M%;]GT+P%MS^7FM<&W+U!&[!QD#AY:8,@0/8O;C#]%]5$C\'Y$K#?.P?NMP]H
MD"(\X/)O&U1/WO5[,XX[^>NS!'$Z$#]3S$\%]@/'O_IF)>WX3W%]"]\`Q^2(
MAIF(+03X'5T`A)! $.""(%$?!@J L%" Y \?Q%?#8#>[2TRGA!=0BSKH$!DS
MB.U]7UE C5*(P>C1)2)&V$T-MU8.'H902PNH$F:8@Q")E F$*ZQ "UNX`1+&
M, H[A&+^!M\'O")HA@)#O*$1HV@!L2BQ;?0@``JUR$(INI$"5*37;SR1DH,)
M@P$OHDL#W@4\"S3@CN43V5^(08!"`H@+?QS3@:J5)O[I*G=UA..(T@*OXB02
M3^73(SOB8($'*.>2>+0``Z!0`-G0SQ1\%(<?`:DK1X(1-=9J'ROAM1!.2O&3
MLZ3 *,-ARJPEH) $.*0=%=G*8O9'/T.!RJ^ZI\OSM(X"^M-7`S\@K1$9@$M.
ME"8S+S8+TG6@FC9"IJ<F4!(JY:N9Z/0#N+9)J.I8;@$]P$$YG_&(94;/`:Y(
M$ -ND1D+/',"T4Q+.;:9LI1M`)RB'%LA[%DH9[XSGBXT)_[(M'G/?#I@GUF@
MXC7W$@B&=O.C9<J(0>]P2C\*\ `E-9\`596^!YT@?GR41 CP4 1\+A #*$U!
M3E&24H*M=*<K*"!,8,H0G+;T7T EX$E["@*ALH2H42AJ5*O()<LPP $+D"!$
MJJJ!6F%5JRWP:E8M`!6FLJ0`7!4!6EF7UAE<=:S&::L'Q K6L+XU;65EP5I%
M=M>XGH"N%>OK:P8K",)B[;"(3:QB%\O8QCKVL9"-K&0G2]G*6O:RF,VL9C?+
-V<YZ]K.@#>W/(@``.P``
`
end
- Next message: Owen: "Re: Aristotle's horse in De Morgan's harness."
- Previous message: David Bernier: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- In reply to: Kenneth Doyle: "Aristotle's horse in De Morgan's harness."
- Next in thread: Owen: "Re: Aristotle's horse in De Morgan's harness."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
