From jens.schicke@hvf-bs.net Fri Jul 30 09:19:28 2004
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 30 Jul 2004 09:19:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [195.37.51.119] (helo=hvf-bs.net)
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
	id 1Bqa61-0003ed-5u
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 30 Jul 2004 09:19:04 -0700
Received: from tau-ceti.homelinux.org (p508E621E.dip.t-dialin.net [80.142.98.30])
	(authenticated)
	by hvf-bs.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i6UGIhN09184
	for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Fri, 30 Jul 2004 18:18:43 +0200
Received: from drahflow by tau-ceti.homelinux.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
	id 1Bqa4A-0000GE-00
	for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Fri, 30 Jul 2004 18:17:06 +0200
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 18:17:06 +0200
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: jimpe - logic
Message-ID: <20040730161706.GA987@hvf-bs.net>
References: <140.2f8dbc85.2e3bc087@wmconnect.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <140.2f8dbc85.2e3bc087@wmconnect.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i
From: Jens-Wolfhard Schicke <jens.schicke@hvf-bs.net>
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (Wertung=-94.587,
	benoetigt 6, autolearn=not spam, AWL 10.11, BAYES_00 -4.90,
	LOCAL_AUTH_RCVD -100.00, RCVD_IN_NJABL 0.10, RCVD_IN_SORBS 0.10)
X-MailScanner-From: jens.schicke@hvf-bs.net
X-archive-position: 8362
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: jens.schicke@hvf-bs.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 11:17:27AM -0400, MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com wrote:
> That is *so* cool.  But is the logic in the first example (section 4.1) 
> valid?  It seems to be deducing a premise from a consequence, which I've always 
> thought was a big no-no.  And then  "artificial" in the title.  

A   B   "If A then B."
f   f   t
f   t   t
t   f   f
t   t   t

So if we assume that "If A then B" is true, as jimpe does, the fact that
B is false leaves only the possiblity of A being false likewise...

One could however not deduce from the fact that B is true the fact that
A is also true...