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

BGonline.org Forums

Woolsey's law and formal logic

Posted By: Matt Cohn-Geier
Date: Thursday, 13 March 2008, at 2:34 p.m.

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

Statement (false): If you see clouds in the sky (p), then it will be raining (q).
Equivalent: It will be raining if you see clouds in the sky.

Contrapositive (false; same value as the statement, by contrapositive law): If it is not raining, then you won't see clouds in the sky (although from a philosophical perspective, I changed the verb tenses here, so there's some room for debate).
Equivalent: You won't see any clouds in the sky if it isn't raining.

Inverse (true, but not by any virtue of logic): If you don't see clouds in the sky, it will not be raining.
Equivalent: It won't be raining if you don't see any clouds in the sky.


Woolsey's Law: If you are unsure about whether your opponent has a take or drop, you should double.
Equivalent: You should double if you are unsure about whether your opponent has a take or drop.

Contrapositive (true by CL, assuming Woolsey's Law holds): If you do not double, then you must be sure about whether your opponent has a take or a drop.
Equivalent: You must be sure about the take or drop if you decide to not double.

Inverse (false): If you are sure about whether your opponent has a take or drop, don't double.
Equivalent: Don't double if you are sure that your opponent has a take or a drop.

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.