Logic

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"Logic always works in a situation where you possess perfect knowledge."

Care to describe a situation where one possesses perfect knowledge?[/b]

I did! The chessboard (nothing is hidden - chess actually illustrates another kind of problem where the information is too great to exhaustively analyze (for humans and computers) - tho if you generalize to checkers then there is an absolute - checkers has been solved.) But those are games - not real life. I doubt you and I could agree on enough facts to even begin to start evaluating logical propositions about life. To me, that's OK. I don't have to prove myself right. I am happy to entertain the possibility that I might be wrong. I take responsibility for what I believe and I try not to be too disrespectful of what others believe. Any of us "could" be right about the things we don't have full information about, however, since our information is not complete we might also "all " be wrong. My advice is to try to live with that. Chaucer said "master thyself and others shall thee beare." I'd rather have friends that angry disagreements.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
I did! The chessboard (nothing is hidden - chess actually illustrates another kind of problem where the information is too great to exhaustively analyze (for humans and computers) - tho if you generalize to checkers then there is an absolute - checkers has been solved.) But those are games - not real life. I doubt you and I could agree on enough facts to ...[text shortened]... hyself and others shall thee beare." I'd rather have friends that angry disagreements.

Well, you've really gone out into left field.

I had kept it as simple as I could. It seems as if you're all excited about a simple test of logic. First of all, I was replying to another post, so you left out the context. Second, you either deliberately exaggerated the idea to avoid the logical conclusion, or you don't know what you're talking about. (not meant as a personal affront)

I asked you to describe a situation where one has perfect knowledge.
You replied, "I did, The chessboard..." No one has perfect knowledge of the game. (this is a thinly veiled challenge to a game)

I see you have a rating above 1800. That puts me at a disadvantage, but I'm looking for more challenging games.

Originally posted by josephw
Well, you've really gone out into left field.

I had kept it as simple as I could. It seems as if you're all excited about a simple test of logic. First of all, I was replying to another post, so you left out the context. Second, you either deliberately exaggerated the idea to avoid the logical conclusion, or you don't know what you're talking about. (not g above 1800. That puts me at a disadvantage, but I'm looking for more challenging games.

Are you capable of logic? It is easy to see that chess fulfills the requirement for perfect knowledge - are there hidden spots on the board that the rest of us don't know about? Do pieces appear and disappear in a random fashion? (Last time I played a game nothing happened out of my sight - I may not have been able to calculate all the possibilities but the information to do so was available to me - it was not hidden.) I am completely flummoxed that you lack the understanding to get this. I was clearly talking about the information that is available on the board. Not the fuzzy rules of thumb that humans use to play the games because we cannot grasp the whole of the information that its available right on the board. Do you know anything about the way computer programs play chess? Heck, do you anything about anything? I would be extremely surprised to find that out.

Also - what kind poor person are you that the moment an argument seems to be going against you you lash out with an irrational tirade containing personal insults? I was trying to treat you with respect as an adult and you respond in a completely disappointing fashion. Enjoy your life - I won't waste my breath on you again.

Originally posted by josephw
I sure like the sound of 'feminine-passive-sound-light vibration', but what is it?

Just something I made up. A composite,if you will. God constantly defies deinition,but its fun,creative and compulsory to try...

Originally posted by TerrierJack
Are you capable of logic? It is easy to see that chess fulfills the requirement for perfect knowledge - are there hidden spots on the board that the rest of us don't know about? Do pieces appear and disappear in a random fashion? (Last time I played a game nothing happened out of my sight - I may not have been able to calculate all the possibilities but ...[text shortened]... in a completely disappointing fashion. Enjoy your life - I won't waste my breath on you again.

Chill out man! You're taking this far too personally.

.."are there hidden spots on the board that the rest of us don't know about?"

Did you ever notice after your opponent makes a particularly devastating move, that you didn't see it coming?


"Heck, do you anything about anything?"

I know how to get your goat. It's for fun. Aren't you having fun Jack?

I'm not trying to insult you. If it comes out that way sometimes, then I apologize.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Just something I made up. A composite,if you will. God constantly defies deinition,but its fun,creative and compulsory to try...

Hey! This is serious stuff here.

You shouldn't go around making things up like that.

I have to confess. I have a weakness for "feminine-passive-sound-light vibrations". 🙄😲😵

Originally posted by josephw
In any debate:

1. We can both be wrong.

2. One of us is wrong.

3. We can't both be right.


Does anyone see any other option(s)?

There is at least one other case in addition to those you and bbarr have enumerated: Each debater can be both right and wrong.

For example, one debater can endorse an argument with a true conclusion but false premises, while the other debater could endorse an argument yielding the opposite conclusion from true premises. The former debater is right about his conclusion but wrong about his premises; the latter debater is wrong about his conclusion but right about his premises.

As another example, one debater could present an invalid argument based on true premises. He would be right about his premises but wrong in his method for reaching his conclusion. His opponent could be right in pointing out that argument's invalidity, yet still be wrong about his own conclusion, if the former debater's invalid argument happened to have a true conclusion.

And so on...

I believe Hand's proposed Case (4) is not in fact a logically distinct case but merely an instance of the previously described Case (2).

Originally posted by josephw
Hey! This is serious stuff here.

You shouldn't go around making things up like that.

I have to confess. I have a weakness for "feminine-passive-sound-light vibrations". 🙄😲😵

🙂bite me🙂