Re: A new definition for Cardinality
- From: "georgie" <geo_cant@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 25 Aug 2006 21:38:43 -0700
Virgil wrote:
In article <1156528540.632536.12620@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"georgie" <geo_cant@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
An "If...then..." form of statement will be true unless the if clause is
true and the then clause is false.
If this statement is true, then this statement is false.
ALSO
If this statement is false, then this statement is true.
I think the two statements above contradict your statement.
You are wrong.
You are wrong because that is, in fact, what I think.
The definition in logic of "material implication", which
is usually represented in English be the If...then... construction, is
precisely that such an if...then... compound statement is true unless
the if clause is true while the then clause is false.
So is the first statement true and therefore false or is it false and
therefore true? I'm just curious how your logic works because my
logic seems a bit more logical than yours. Not to worry though,
because I understand that your less logical logic is the "true"
logic. I'm just trying to figure it out, just as the OP is.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A new definition for Cardinality
- From: georgedance04
- Re: A new definition for Cardinality
- From: georgedance04
- Re: A new definition for Cardinality
- From: Virgil
- Re: A new definition for Cardinality
- References:
- A new definition for Cardinality
- From: zuhair
- Re: A new definition for Cardinality
- From: Daryl McCullough
- Re: A new definition for Cardinality
- From: zuhair
- Re: A new definition for Cardinality
- From: Virgil
- Re: A new definition for Cardinality
- From: georgie
- Re: A new definition for Cardinality
- From: Virgil
- A new definition for Cardinality
- Prev by Date: Re: Justice For Pluto
- Next by Date: Re: abstract algebra question...
- Previous by thread: Re: A new definition for Cardinality
- Next by thread: Re: A new definition for Cardinality
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|