[FRIAM] talking to bots is fun for everyone
Frank Wimberly
wimberly3 at gmail.com
Tue Dec 27 15:19:38 EST 2022
>I'm guessing that would mean ¬B⇒¬A.
I made a mistake by getting married when I was 20. That marriage didn't
last but you reminded me of a conversation that I had with that wife. Once
she said, "If I'm not right I don't argue..." I replied, "That's logically
equivalent to, 'If I argue I'm right' " She said, "The problem with you
is you're too logical."
A few years later I married my current wife, who is a humanist. We've been
happily married ever since.
Frank
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM
On Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 12:42 PM glen <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, I know. But your answers were inadequate for answering Eric's
> question, without exhibiting that you were answering the question. I.e. you
> weren't answering the question, except by implied omission ... aka *lying*
> by omission. >8^D
>
> It's (badly) analogous to if your S.O. asks you whether you're having an
> affair with a particular person. And you answer: "No, I'm not having an
> affair with *that* particular person." Sure, we all know ¬(A⇒B)⇒A⋀¬B. But
> that's not what gpt said, which was "the formula on the right is true
> *only* if the formula on the left is true". I'm guessing that would mean
> ¬B⇒¬A. And I'm further guessing the only way we can get to that is if we
> swap out the ⇒ with a ⇔ in the discussed premise.
>
> Brevity is your enemy. Previously, I asked gpt to contrast Richard Rorty
> and CS Peirce. It gave me this super simplified answer that woefully
> misrepresented both. They've weighted ChatGPT (at least) so heavily to
> brevity and summarization that the summaries are either flat out wrong, or
> (like Frank did here) fail to target the subject being discussed entirely.
> I think they could compensate by weighting rare tokens more heavily than
> common tokens. I'm sure they already do that to some extent. But whatever
> methods they're using aren't working very well.
>
> I want to say something about how LLMs might be able to get at *a* logic
> (or a finite number of logics) exhibited in our text(s), but won't be able
> to get at *theories* of logics, the kind of distinction Beall (via Weber)
> seems to be making in that book review. Whether one is tolerant of
> inconsistency (like me) or insists on metalanguages for resolving paradox
> is irrelevant. What matters is that a bot that can use either method will
> outperform one that can't. But, of course, I shouldn't say anthing of that
> sort, because I'll demonstrate my incompetence even more than I already
> have. What's the old saying? It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear
> stupid than to open it and show everyone you are stupid? Oh well. I guess
> that ship's sailed. 8^D
>
> On 12/27/22 11:04, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> > My definition is consistent with that. The only state of affairs
> excluded by A implies B is A is true and B is not.
> >
> > The truth table for A implies B is:
> >
> > A B A implies B
> >
> > T T T
> > T F F
> > F T T
> > F F T
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Frank C. Wimberly
> > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> > Santa Fe, NM 87505
> >
> > 505 670-9918
> > Santa Fe, NM
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 10:57 AM glen <gepropella at gmail.com <mailto:
> gepropella at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Well, I'm probably confused because I'm trying (and failing) to read
> this at the moment:
> >
> > Paradoxes and Inconsistent Mathematics
> > https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/paradoxes-and-inconsistent-mathematics/
> <https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/paradoxes-and-inconsistent-mathematics/>
> >
> > But I'm on Eric's side, here. "A⇒B" does not mean B can only be true
> when/if A is true. A can be false while B is true. But when A is true, B
> must also be true. So the set of conditions where B obtains can be larger
> than the set of conditions where A obtains.
> >
> >
> > On 12/27/22 09:22, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> > > A implies B is false iff A is true and B is false.
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Frank C. Wimberly
> > > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> > > Santa Fe, NM 87505
> > >
> > > 505 670-9918
> > > Santa Fe, NM
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 10:15 AM David Eric Smith <
> desmith at santafe.edu <mailto:desmith at santafe.edu> <mailto:
> desmith at santafe.edu <mailto:desmith at santafe.edu>>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Are you sure Frank?
> > >
> > > The sentence from gtp that I highlight said:
> > >
> > >> "⊃" is the logical symbol for "implies." It is used to
> form conditional statements in which the formula on the right is true only
> if the formula on the left is true.
> > >
> > > As I understand “implies” (or just the conditional if A then
> B), it means that the formula on the right is true _if_ the formula on the
> left is true. Not “only if” as gtp is quoted to say above. Correct would
> be “the formula on the right is _false_ _only if_ the formula on the left
> is _false_. Conditional doesn’t say anything about whether B is true or
> false if A is not true.
> > >
> > > Eric
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Dec 27, 2022, at 11:46 AM, Frank Wimberly <
> wimberly3 at gmail.com <mailto:wimberly3 at gmail.com> <mailto:
> wimberly3 at gmail.com <mailto:wimberly3 at gmail.com>>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I've taken courses in formal logic at multiple levels. All
> that notation is familiar and the explanation seems correct if vacuous.
> > >>
> > >> ---
> > >> Frank C. Wimberly
> > >> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> > >> Santa Fe, NM 87505
> > >>
> > >> 505 670-9918
> > >> Santa Fe, NM
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 3:19 AM David Eric Smith <
> desmith at santafe.edu <mailto:desmith at santafe.edu> <mailto:
> desmith at santafe.edu <mailto:desmith at santafe.edu>>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Interesting. Lack of global awareness duly noted.
> > >>
> > >> But also, can you check me on this?:
> > >>
> > >> > On Dec 26, 2022, at 7:21 PM, glen <
> gepropella at gmail.com <mailto:gepropella at gmail.com> <mailto:
> gepropella at gmail.com <mailto:gepropella at gmail.com>>> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > This exchange was interesting. I've never seen ⊃° used.
> > >> >
> > >> > ⋄⋄⋄⋄⋄⋄⋄⋄⋄⋄⋄⋄⋄⋄⋄⋄⋄⋄⋄⋄⋄⋄⋄⋄⋄⋄
> > >> > me: What is the difference between ⊃ and ⊢.
> > >> >
> > >> > gpt: The symbol "⊃" is the logical symbol for
> "implies." It is used to form conditional statements in which the formula
> on the right is true only if the formula on the left is true. For example,
> the formula "A ⊃ B" can be read as "A implies B," and it means that if A is
> true, then B must also be true.
> > >>
> > >> Am I somehow blanking on ordinary sign-flips, or
> mistaking left and right?
> > >>
> > >> Seems B Is true _if_ A is true. B is false _only if_ A
> is false == If A is true, then B must also be true.
> > >>
> > >> Given that English is not ensured to have any global
> internal logical consistency, one can see making sentences that don’t close
> internally. But in areas where English is capable of being used with
> internal consistency, I am surprised to see an “only if” transposed with an
> “if” everywhere. Did I completely misunderstand what “implies” means?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On all this I feel completely exposed: I thought I
> remembered from Quine’s little book on propositional calculus that
> “implies” isn’t even an elementary operator; only enters in a context like
> modus ponens for proofs. In first-order logic one was supposed to write
> expressions such as “B or not(A)” to mean “if A then B”. And there was
> some other symbol (even simpler than the entails) for that conditional.
> > >>
> > >> Eric
>
> --
> ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: 5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20221227/1e404d9a/attachment.html>
More information about the Friam
mailing list