On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 8:11:23 PM UTC-8, Michael Turniansky wrote:
No. You are making a common mistake of confusing the English "if" with the logician's if. When we are not talking about one thing depending on another ("if I get my car fixed, then we can go to the movies"), but rather logical implication (two statements that relate in their truth value) ("if it is raining, then the ground is wet"). Is that statement true if the ground is wet from a sprinkler, but yet it is sunny?, Yes, because we are only told what happens if it is rainy. But if it is NOT rainy, we aren't making any conclusion about the wetness of the ground, so the combined statement is still true. The only time it can be false if the hypothesis ("it is sunny") is true, but the conclusion ("the ground is wet") is false.
In the example I provided, why is ganai-gi (TFTT) preferred over ge-gi (TFFF)?
I don't understand how the last two rows of the truth table resulting in True is useful to the statement.
Can the example be translated the same way if we replace ganai with ge?
If not: why not, and what changes?
8.3) ro da zo'u ganai da klama le zarci gi cadzu le foldi
For-every X: if X is-a-goer-to the store then X is-a-walker-on the field.