[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums

Woolsey's law and formal logic

Posted By: Stein Kulseth
Date: Thursday, 13 March 2008, at 11:08 a.m.

In Response To: Woolsey's law and formal logic (PersianLord)

Yes, I think I got it.

But when you have

~p: your opponent is SURE of taking/dropping

~q: you should NOT double

then ~q => ~p is:
if (~q: you should NOT double) then (~p: your opponent is SURE of taking/dropping)

What you wrote:
You should NOT double (~q), if your opponent is SURE of taking/dropping (~p)
equates to ~p => ~q, which is not equal to Woolsey's law p => q

Note that in this wording the if is what designates the premise, even if language allows us to write the premise after the conclusion. Your statement is also equal to:
If your opponent is SURE of taking/dropping, then you should NOT double
which makes the ~p => ~q a bit clearer

Messages In This Thread

 

Post Response
Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:

If necessary, enter your password below:

Password:
 

 

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.