Wordsmith.org: the magic of words

Wordsmith Talk

About Us | What's New | Search | Site Map | Contact Us  

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
#26750 04/17/01 09:58 PM
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Dear inselpeter: have you proved that Socrates is still alive?

I think he's proved he doesn't know what a syllogism is.


#26751 04/18/01 07:08 AM
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 393
N
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
N
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 393
Is the following true?

Since the majority of people who have ever lived are living still, probability does not support the major premise of the syllogism in question, namely, that all men are mortal.


It's not true, but I once thought it was. On being questioned, I tracked down where I thought I'd got it from, and found it hadn't said it. But perhaps the claim is circulating and I picked it up from somewhere.

If you look at the Earth's population estimates, you see something like this, (which is very rough): 1 thousand million in 1800, 2 thousand million in 1900, 3 in 1930, 4 in 1960, and increasing. Project these forward and back and add them up to either 100 000 or 3 000 000 years ago, it makes no difference which, and you find that our present population is of the order of one fifth of those who have ever lived. But it should reach the majority within a hundred years.

(Repeats disclaimer about vagueness, but it gives the right picture at least.)


#26752 04/18/01 12:11 PM
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Is the following true?

Since the majority of people who have ever lived are living still, probability does not support the major premise of the syllogism in question, namely, that all men are mortal.


Also, since the vast majority of people still alive have not gotten to the point where they would be expected to be dead yet, probability *still does not prove the major premise to be unlikely. Interestingly, we having something akin to the computer halting problem. We can't declare the major premise to be proven false until an infinite amount of time has gone by and someone is still alive.


#26753 04/20/01 09:44 AM
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
I
Pooh-Bah
Offline
Pooh-Bah
I
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Interestingly, we having something akin to the computer halting problem. We can't declare the major premise to be proven false until an infinite amount of time has gone by and someone is still alive.

Or like proving there really is a new economy?

Dear inselpeter: have you proved that Socrates is still alive?

No, but I've had a hell of a time convincing him he isn't.

I think he's proved he doesn't know what a syllogism is.

Probably, logic has never been my strong suit. [ignoring titters emoticon] Explain?





#26754 04/20/01 12:08 PM
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,204
R
Pooh-Bah
Offline
Pooh-Bah
R
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,204
Since the majority of people who have ever lived are living still, probability does not support the major premise of the syllogism in question, namely, that all men are mortal.


I have always declared that I am immortal, and will continue to maintain that fact to my dying day!



#26755 04/20/01 01:50 PM
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803

The original syllogism

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
[Therefore] Socrates is mortal.


This fits the form:

All A are B
C is A
Therefore, C is B


Yours

All syllogisms are arguments from major to minor premise
Socrates is not a premise
Therefore, "All men are mortal..." is not a syllogism


seems to be of the form

All A are B
C is not D
Therefore, E is not A


Does this make sense?




#26756 04/21/01 01:42 PM
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 18
K
stranger
Offline
stranger
K
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 18
inselpeter wrote

Syllogism:
All syllogisms are arguments from major to minor premise
Socrates is not a premise
Therefore, "All men are mortal..." is not a syllogism


Is this a syllogism? A syllogism necessarily characterises a flow from two connected premises to the conclusion. I don't think that your first statement is correct. The second one is correct, but the third one, I feel, is a non-sequitor; it does not follow from the second.

Regards,
Manoj.

PS: I read somewhere about a great book or an articles, proving many false things using non-sequitors. Does anybody know about it?



Bangalore India
12°58' N, 77°39' E

http://www.geocities.com/kummini/index.html


Bangalore India
12°58' N, 77°39' E

http://www.geocities.com/kummini/index.html
#26757 04/21/01 08:04 PM
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 163
R
member
Offline
member
R
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 163
The discussion on logic reminded me of a passage from the Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy. It was explaing how the population of the universe was zero. It went as follows: There are a finite number of planets that are habitable in the universe while there are an infinite number of planets. As everyone knows any finite number divided by infinitiy is pretty much zero, therefore the population of the universe must be zero.

It is unfortunate, but I see people making conclusions just as valid every day in the newspaper.


#26758 04/21/01 08:16 PM
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661
...proving many false things using non-sequitors. Does anybody know about it?

My favorite comic Zippy(the Pinhead) by Bill Griffith does it with each "episode".


#26759 04/22/01 02:17 AM
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
M
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
M
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
And to follow up that quote, while attempting to pique the interest of our gutter police, the Guide continues

Population: None.

It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply
because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in.
However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there
must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number
divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so
the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be
said to be zero.

Art: None.

The function of art is to hold the mirror up to nature, and there
simply isn't a mirror big enough.

Sex: None.

Well, in fact there is an awful lot of this, largely because of
the total lack of money, trade, banks, art, or anything else that
might keep all the non-existent people of the Universe occupied.
However, it is not worth embarking on a long discussion of it now
because it really is terribly complicated. For further
information see Guide Chapters seven, nine, ten, eleven,
fourteen, sixteen, seventeen, nineteen, twenty-one to eighty-four
inclusive.



Page 2 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Moderated by  Jackie 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Statistics
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,317
Members9,182
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
Newest Members
Ineffable, ddrinnan, TRIALNERRA, befuddledmind, KILL_YOUR_SUV
9,182 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 628 guests, and 1 robot.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Top Posters(30 Days)
Top Posters
wwh 13,858
Faldage 13,803
Jackie 11,613
tsuwm 10,542
wofahulicodoc 10,534
LukeJavan8 9,916
AnnaStrophic 6,511
Wordwind 6,296
of troy 5,400
Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site. Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.

Home | Today's Word | Yesterday's Word | Subscribe | FAQ | Archives | Search | Feedback
Wordsmith Talk | Wordsmith Chat

© 1994-2024 Wordsmith

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5