17 May 05
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerIf this claim is true, the the following claim must be true, for the monk's questions are identical in form.
The answer, from the superior's replies, is yes.
"The answer, from the superior's replies, is no."
If you deduce your claim from the second response, which allows simultaneous prayer and smoking, I, by formal deduction, find that the monk's first response is a lie.
17 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesRead the second half of my post.
If this claim is true, the the following claim must be true, for the monk's questions are identical in form.
"The answer, from the superior's replies, is no."
An analogy from logic: in A => B, if A is true then it follows that B is true. If A is false, however, it does not imply that B is false.
17 May 05
4 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerI'm quite familiar with that rule and I find that it has no application here, nor does it have any analogous counterpart in the situation at hand.
Read the second half of my post.
An analogy from logic: in A => B, if A is true then it follows that B is true. If A is false, however, it does not imply that B is false.
The two questions the monk asks are equivalent in form. Do you deny this?
Do you deny that "A and B" and "B and A" are equivalent propositions? May I remind you of this logical tautology: (A and B) implies (B and A). That is the situation at hand.
The monk asserts (A and B) by his second answer, yet denies (B and A) by his first answer. Thus, he has lied.
17 May 05
Originally posted by ivanhoei agree with Scribs' posts above...i don't think this 'conundrum' poses any threat to the fundamentalist's stance. it could, conceivably, but not in the context presented.
There is an old story told of a young monk who goes to his superior with two questions:
Can I smoke a cigarette while I am praying ?
To which the answer is NO. But he then asks the further question:
Can I pray while I am smoking a cigarette ?
To which the answer has to be YES.
Without encouraging you to smoke, I hope you see the difference.
17 May 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThe monk does not ask "A and B" - he asks "A while B". The connotations are different.
I'm quite familiar with that rule and I find that it has no application here, nor does it have any analogous counterpart in the situation at hand.
The two questions the monk asks are equivalent in form. Do you deny this?
Do you deny that "A and B" and "B and A" are equivalent propositions? May I remind you of this logical tautology: ...[text shortened]... ts (A and B) by his second answer, yet denies (B and A) by his first answer. Thus, he has lied.
17 May 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerHow do you logically represent "A while B" if not by the AND operator?
The monk does not ask "A and B" - he asks "A [b]while B". The connotations are different.[/b]
What is the truth table for WHILE? I've never seen one, but I'm sure it would be identical to that of AND.
17 May 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIvanhoe did not present statements in logical form, so you can not say they are formally identical - you presume they are. The smoking and praying are not describing the same things at the same time - this is clear by the answers given to the questions. So it is not (A and B) vs (B and A), it is (A and B) vs (D and C).
I'm quite familiar with that rule and I find that it has no application here, nor does it have any analogous counterpart in the situation at hand.
The two questions the monk asks are equivalent in form. Do you deny this?
Do you deny that "A and B" and "B and A" are equivalent propositions? May I remind you of this logical tautology: ...[text shortened]... ts (A and B) by his second answer, yet denies (B and A) by his first answer. Thus, he has lied.
17 May 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThere wouldn't be a fixed truth table for WHILE because it would depend on the context.
How do you logically represent "A while B" if not by the AND operator?
What is the truth table for WHILE? I've never seen one, but I'm sure it would be identical to that of AND.
17 May 05
Originally posted by PhlabibitIf my kid asks me if she may "read while eating," I'll say no. No reading at the dinner table.
Can I walk while hitting a golf ball? No.
Can I hit a golf ball while walking? No.
Please explain how the first post can be supported.
ES
If my kid asks me if the may "eat while reading," I'll say yes. She may eat a snack while doing her reading assignment.
17 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerIf there's not a fixed truth table, the truth of the proposition is not well-defined.
There wouldn't be a fixed truth table for WHILE because it would depend on the context.
How can you defend the superior as being truthful when you can't even define a formal standard for the truth of his responses?
17 May 05
Originally posted by Phlabibit"Can I walk while hitting a golf ball?"
Can I walk while hitting a golf ball? No.
Can I hit a golf ball while walking? No.
Please explain how the first post can be supported.
ES
No, you must stand still to hit a gold ball with a club.
"Can I hit a golf ball while walking?"
Yes, if you don't look where you are walking, your foot may hit a ball in play, messing up a game of golf.
17 May 05
Originally posted by ColettiUh . . .
If my kid asks me if she may "read while eating," I'll say no. No reading at the dinner table.
If my kid asks me if the may "eat while reading," I'll say yes. She may eat a snack while doing her reading assignment.
Does "eat" mean to consume dinner at the dinner table or does it mean "to consume a light snack"?