|
|
| Author |
Message |
eharkins
|
|
Syllogism
| 
Nov 2 00:04 UTC 1994 |
A syllogism has three parts
Therefore, this is not a syllogism.
|
| 34 responses total. |
mwarner
|
|
response 1 of 34:
|
Nov 2 00:41 UTC 1994 |
Unless it is part of a syllogism.
|
remmers
|
|
response 2 of 34:
|
Nov 2 02:01 UTC 1994 |
All items have a proper conference.
Agora is a proper conference.
Therefore, this is an item.
(Enigma is also a proper conference, so guess where this is gonna
get linked...)
|
remmers
|
|
response 3 of 34:
|
Nov 2 02:03 UTC 1994 |
This h'yar item is now linked tuh Enigma as item two hunnerd an'
twenny-four.
|
kentn
|
|
response 4 of 34:
|
Nov 2 03:07 UTC 1994 |
U meen "twenny-fur"?
|
brighn
|
|
response 5 of 34:
|
Nov 2 03:47 UTC 1994 |
I don't follow the syllogism in #2. Isn't that the same as:
All cats are mammals.
A dog is a mammal.
Therefore, a dog is a cat.
(Or similar, at any rate?)
All syllogisms have three lines
This is a syllogism.
Therefore, this has three lines.
|
aruba
|
|
response 6 of 34:
|
Nov 2 03:51 UTC 1994 |
Re #2: I hate being anal, but I'm afraid I just can't shake it. I don't
think that syllogism is correct; I think the first line should be
"Everything with a proper conference is an item."
|
brighn
|
|
response 7 of 34:
|
Nov 2 04:36 UTC 1994 |
No, that would make:
Everything with a proper conference is an item
Agora is a proper conference.
Therefore, everything with Agora is an item.
We need:
Everything within Agora is an item.
This is within Agora.
Therefore, this is an item.
We could of course generate a four-line syllogism as follows:
Everything with a proper conference is an item.
^--- in
Agora is a proper conference
This is within Agora
Therefore this is an item
but that would be getting silly, and we wouldn't want to do that, now, would
we?
|
aruba
|
|
response 8 of 34:
|
Nov 2 04:54 UTC 1994 |
No, brighn, I meant that if you just replaced the first line like I said,
and didn't touch the other lines, it would be correct.
|
brighn
|
|
response 9 of 34:
|
Nov 2 04:58 UTC 1994 |
And I'm saying that's wrong. You want:
Everything with a proper conference is an item
Agora is a proper conference
Therefore, this is an item
Which is wrong, because you haven't establisshed that this is with Agora,
whatever *that* means.
|
remmers
|
|
response 10 of 34:
|
Nov 2 05:12 UTC 1994 |
This hyar is a syllogism.
Thet thing over there, it be a syllogism too.
Tharfore, they done both be syllogisms.
|
aruba
|
|
response 11 of 34:
|
Nov 2 14:38 UTC 1994 |
whatever. <Aruba concedes that brighn is more anal than he is.>
|
mwarner
|
|
response 12 of 34:
|
Nov 2 16:24 UTC 1994 |
That's sillygisms to you, buster. <g>
|
brighn
|
|
response 13 of 34:
|
Nov 2 20:59 UTC 1994 |
<brighn ismproud to be so anal.>
|
remmers
|
|
response 14 of 34:
|
Nov 2 21:11 UTC 1994 |
A syllogism is a syllogism is a syllogism.
I am not a syllogism.
Therefore, I am Gertrude Stein.
|
brighn
|
|
response 15 of 34:
|
Nov 2 21:33 UTC 1994 |
Now that is a valid syllogism.
|
srw
|
|
response 16 of 34:
|
Nov 3 06:21 UTC 1994 |
But one can clearly see that you are Western Snord (it says so), therefore
(reductio ad absurdum) your initial assumption must be incorrect, and
a syllogism is thus *not* a syllogism. Q.E.D.
I hope that clears *that* up once and for all.
|
remmers
|
|
response 17 of 34:
|
Nov 3 10:29 UTC 1994 |
Oh, but the statements "a syllogism is a syllogism" and "a syllogism
is not a syllogism" are mutually compatible, by analogy with "a pine
is a pine" and "a pine is knotty pine".
|
bjt
|
|
response 18 of 34:
|
Nov 3 16:24 UTC 1994 |
ROTFL
|
rcurl
|
|
response 19 of 34:
|
Nov 3 17:16 UTC 1994 |
I wouldn't go *that* far...besides, a pine is a mail. Some pine for mail.
|
eharkins
|
|
response 20 of 34:
|
Nov 3 17:56 UTC 1994 |
#14: very interesting!
|
srw
|
|
response 21 of 34:
|
Nov 4 08:21 UTC 1994 |
Re #17: I guess you're right. That could've been a knotty syllogism indeed.
I need to reboot now.
|
nephi
|
|
response 22 of 34:
|
Nov 4 08:23 UTC 1994 |
What in the *Heck* does ROTFL mean!
|
brighn
|
|
response 23 of 34:
|
Nov 4 09:12 UTC 1994 |
R(olling) O(n) T(he) F(loor) L(aughing)
|
batty
|
|
response 24 of 34:
|
Nov 4 18:38 UTC 1994 |
CUTE!!
|