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.

Creutzer comments on Open thread, July 28 - August 3, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: polymathwannabe 28 July 2014 08:27PM

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

Comments (241)

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

Comment author: Creutzer 29 July 2014 07:41:13PM *  3 points [-]

A: If John comes to the party, Mary will be happy. (So there is a chance that Mary will be happy.)

B: But John isn't going to the party. (So your argument is invalid.)

Comment author: [deleted] 30 July 2014 11:55:47AM 1 point [-]

That's what the subjunctive is for. If A had said “If Jon came to the party, Mary would be happy”, ...

Comment author: Creutzer 01 August 2014 06:17:17AM 1 point [-]

The same thing can still happen with a subjunctive conditional, though.

A: If John came to the party, Mary would be happy. (So we could make Mary happy by making John come to the party.) B: But John isn't going to the party, no matter what we do. (So your argument is invalid.)

Also, pace George R. R. Martin, the name is still spelled John. Sorry, no offense, I just couldn't resist. :)

Comment author: gjm 02 August 2014 09:15:53PM 4 points [-]

Jon -- short for Jonathan -- was a perfectly good name long before George R R Martin.

Comment author: Creutzer 03 August 2014 06:41:52AM 2 points [-]

Ah, thanks. I didn't know that existed as a short form for Jonathan, and inferred that it was merely another instance of his distorting English spelling in names and titles.