Re: logic is innate?
From: Jesse F. Hughes (jesse_at_phiwumbda.org)
Date: 12/03/04
- Next message: HERC777: "No Unique Initial Segment And No Characteristic Expansion."
- Previous message: Virgil: "Re: induction vs Cantor"
- In reply to: Acid Pooh: "Re: logic is innate?"
- Next in thread: Herman Jurjus: "Re: logic is innate?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 09:56:20 +0100
poopdeville@gmail.com (Acid Pooh) writes:
>> > Granting this, your example of the non-monotonicity of this
>> > conversational conditional doesn't really show what you think it
>> > does.
>>
>> I'm not sure what you're correcting here.
>
> Well, you claimed that "_The_ conditional operator of natural language
> is non-monotonic," whereas your example shows that it isn't unique.
> (\emph mine)
You're right. I shouldn't have used the definite article.
-- Jesse F. Hughes "LOL. How arrogant you are. Now when you realize that I DID prove Goldbach's conjecture and that I proved Fermat's Last Theorem as well, how are you going to feel then?" -- James Harris
- Next message: HERC777: "No Unique Initial Segment And No Characteristic Expansion."
- Previous message: Virgil: "Re: induction vs Cantor"
- In reply to: Acid Pooh: "Re: logic is innate?"
- Next in thread: Herman Jurjus: "Re: logic is innate?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
