Philosophy problem dealing with logic...nice practice for computational logic

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by gilgalad
...
fundamental numeric identity theorum:
If x = y and y = z, then
x = z
...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Remote_Access
...If a Red M&M = Blue M&M and
Blue M&M = Green M&M
Then a Red = Green M&M

M&M's have an essence and there's millions of those. They're all the same. That's like saying there is only one red M&M and it can't coexist with another one because it has an "essence". :p

---

You are saying to fundamentally different things.
If x=y and y=z, then x=z, is very different than a RED M&M being a GREEN M&M.
2+2=4 and 3+1=4, so 2+2=3+1, but RED is not GREEN. Red is a M&M, and Green is a M&M, but red is not green. That is like saying a dog is an animal and a cat is an animal, therefore a dog is a cat.

R_A, you have shown one ot the primary fallacies of logic..., one that I should remember the name of, but then I graduated and as you said, Philosophy taught me to think, not regurgitate. It is also making it very difficult to find a job...(funny that in the current economy no one want a guy with a BA is Philo... :p ). But as you made that mistake here in the tender loving environment of the Cosmos Forum, you won't make it in class, and perhaps you can: 1 catch someone else on it, or 2 find out the name of it and re-educate me so that I can forget it again.

Negative already beat me to the punch on my comment (as he ususally does), so I had to wait for someone to say something that could draw me back into the conversation.

Good conversation.

Peace,
Dhej

Copi would call that the fallacy of an Undistributed Middle.

All dogs are animals, all cats are animals, therefore all dogs are cats.
Animals is the middle term. Both dogs and cats share the common property of being animals, but according to the rules of logic, they may be different. And they are...

All reds are M&Ms, all greens are M&Ms, therefore all greens are reds... don't think so ;)

Quote:

---

If x = y and y = z, then x = z

---

or

[ ( x = y ) ^ ( y = z ) ] -> ( x = z )

this IS true. mathematically speaking. you can't substitute english for mathematical variables and expect it to hold true.

you are saying that x EQUALS y ... so they are exactly the same thing. and if y EQUALS z then x must also equal z.

it is a completely different thing if we replace the equals with -> meaning IF x THEN y. then we are allowed to substitute english. though it may not make sense in english, it does in logic.

[ ( x -> y ) ^ ( y -> z ) ] -> ( x -> z ) this is a hypothetical syllogism straight from the rules of inference.

here we are saying;
if x then y and if y then z therefor if x then z
if it is raining i wear a coat and if i wear a coat i am warm. so if it is raining i am warm.
it works logically for the M&Ms too! but makes even less sense in english.

I think that the T.S. is whichever ship that you decide to name the T.S., but neither is the same old ship that Thesius had. :D

You guys think too much. It's very confusing :confused:

I generally agree with rcgreen,

Quote:

---

Whichever one has the little metal plaque with the name and license info.

---

By the way, he should fire those workers. One board a day! Sheesh! :D

lol...I absolutely love that answer.