You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Vaniver comments on The Universal Medical Journal Article Error - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: PhilGoetz 29 April 2014 05:57PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (189)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Vaniver 06 April 2013 05:40:35PM *  1 point [-]

First, we start with the symbolic statement:

!∀x∃y P(x,y)

Next, we replace the variables with English names:

!∀black thing ∃ raven-nature

Next, we replace the symbols with English phrases:

Not every black thing has raven-nature

Then we clean up the English:

Not every black thing is a raven.

We can repeat the process with the other sentence, being careful to use the same words when we replace the variables:

∀x∃y !P(x,y)

becomes

∀black thing ∃ not-raven-nature

becomes

All black things have not-raven-nature

and finally:

Every black thing is not a raven.

(I should note that my English interpretation of ∃y P(x,y) is probably a bit different and more compact than PhilGoetz's, but I think that's a linguistic rather than logical difference.)

Comment author: PhilGoetz 06 April 2013 08:33:28PM *  3 points [-]

You certainly gave me the most-favorable interpretation. But I just goofed. I fixed it above. This is what I was thinking, but my mind wanted to put "black(x)" in there because that's what you do with ravens in symbolic logic.

A) Not everything is a raven: !∀x raven(x)

B) Everything is not a raven: ∀x !raven(x)

Comment author: Vaniver 07 April 2013 02:15:26AM 2 points [-]

The new version is much clearer. My interpretation of the old version was that y was something like "attribute," so you could say "Not every black thing has being a raven as one of its attributes" or "for every black thing, it does not have an attribute which is being a raven." Both of those are fairly torturous sentences in English but the logic looks the same.

Comment author: Morendil 06 April 2013 10:48:18PM *  0 points [-]

!∀black thing ∃ raven-nature

That's where I don't follow. I read the original sentence as "for every x there is an y such that the relationship P obtains between x and y". I'm OK with your assigning "black things" to x but "raven-nature" needs explanation; I don't see how to parse it as a relationship between two things previously introduced.

The edited version makes more sense to me now.