Re: A implies I
- From: Yuri <Yuri@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 19:11:22 +0200
William of Ockham schrieb:
Obviously this is not true in predicate logic, if 'every car in the
street is green' is read as, not for some x, x is a car in the street
and x is not green, and if 'no car in the street is green 'not for some
x, x is a car in the street and x is green. For both of these can be
true (if there are no cars in the street). But it does seem odd to say
that every A is B, and no A is B, could both be true.
I'm not really getting it. If there are no cars in the streets, you can't say that all cars are green, neither can you say no car is green, because there are no cars. You say "there's no green car" [because there isn't], but you can't say "no car is green" because that would be equivalent to "none of the cars in the street is green", which means that there has to be at least one car in the street.
....no?
--
"Sei was du willst, aber sei du selbst." - Mike
GU d[pu]--- s+:- a18 C+ U? P L>+[+] E? W++ N? !o K- w+ [O] M V? PS+[++] PE Y+ PGP? t[-] 5? X+[+] R>+ tv b++ DI- !D G e->+++ h! !r !z-
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A implies I
- From: George Dance
- Re: A implies I
- From: William of Ockham
- Re: A implies I
- References:
- A implies I
- From: William of Ockham
- A implies I
- Prev by Date: A implies I
- Next by Date: Re: Beliefs; Necessary But Not Sufficient For Truth?
- Previous by thread: A implies I
- Next by thread: Re: A implies I
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
