**Next message:**Dave Winer: "Re: It's IBM dummy"**Previous message:**Dave Winer: "It's IBM dummy"**In reply to:**Tony Berkman: "RE: How do you teach fundamental logic to someone that doesn't grok it?"**Next in thread:**Matt Jensen: "Re: How do you teach fundamental logic to someone that doesn'tgrok it?"**Maybe reply:**Matt Jensen: "Re: How do you teach fundamental logic to someone that doesn'tgrok it?"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Tony Berkman wrote:

*> I have to disagree. Where does it say they are statements??? I am
*

*> considering
*

Ahem, *assuming.*

*> them Binary Random Variables over some unknown distribution
*

Assuming.

*> in
*

*> which case if B is a discreet Random Variable, even without knowing it's
*

*> mass, you know a little bit more about A once you know that B is True.
*

*>
*

*> At 10:44 PM 5/3/01, John Hall wrote:
*

*> >Similarly, if A => B and you know that B is true you have no idea whether A
*

*> >is true or false. No information. None.
*

*> >Zero. Zilch. Nada.
*

*> >
*

I have to agree with John, Tony. Given the discussion, it was entirely obvious

that A => B meant "A implies B," with A and B being simple truth values. No need

to make it more complex; always choose the smallest possible context for

interpretation of mathematical assertions. "Principle of Least Assumption" and

all that. No reason to assume that the logic of the system is nonmonotonic or

contextual unless we're told otherwise.

In straightforward (i.e., introductory) monotonic / symbolic logic, A => B, B

tells you nothing about A's truth value.

Tony does suggest a point, however, in that introducing statistical or other

relationships or facts about the quantities involved or other state makes the

problem more interesting. But then, that's moving towards information theory ---

very interesting indeed, but not something John has to figure out how to teach to

HS kids. (Unless he's very lucky.:-)

jb

PS - though in ASCII I would've said A --> B. ;-)

**Next message:**Dave Winer: "Re: It's IBM dummy"**Previous message:**Dave Winer: "It's IBM dummy"**In reply to:**Tony Berkman: "RE: How do you teach fundamental logic to someone that doesn't grok it?"**Next in thread:**Matt Jensen: "Re: How do you teach fundamental logic to someone that doesn'tgrok it?"**Maybe reply:**Matt Jensen: "Re: How do you teach fundamental logic to someone that doesn'tgrok it?"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29
: Sun May 06 2001 - 08:04:38 PDT
*