From pycyn@aol.com Fri Apr 26 06:24:09 2002
Return-Path: <Pycyn@aol.com>
X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 26 Apr 2002 13:24:08 -0000
Received: (qmail 41875 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2002 13:24:08 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218)
  by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 Apr 2002 13:24:08 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r01.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.97)
  by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Apr 2002 13:24:08 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com
  by imo-r01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.85.1ab01339 (4533)
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:23:57 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <85.1ab01339.29faaeed@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:23:57 EDT
Subject: Re: [lojban] So you think you're logical?
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_85.1ab01339.29faaeed_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118
From: pycyn@aol.com
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001
X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra

--part1_85.1ab01339.29faaeed_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 4/25/2002 5:52:21 PM Central Daylight Time, 
jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


> The question would be whether the results would be better if the
> problem was presented in Lojban, where presumably this particular
> connective is more transparent. And what would happen if the
> problems were worded in English something like:
> 
> "The rule governing the production of the cards states that a
> card either doesn't have a circle on one side, or it has the
> colour yellow on the other."

I expect that this would have worse results, if possible. My students always 
found "or" even harder to read, partly -- as daniyl notes -- because of the 
XOR reading (not actually as common as one might think, but dominating in our 
thoughts) and partly because we just don't use "or" all that much in 
reasoning -- and certainly not with a "not" thrown in.

--part1_85.1ab01339.29faaeed_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2>In a message dated 4/25/2002 5:52:21 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">The question would be whether the results would be better if the<BR>
problem was presented in Lojban, where presumably this particular<BR>
connective is more transparent. And what would happen if the<BR>
problems were worded in English something like:<BR>
<BR>
"The rule governing the production of the cards states that a<BR>
card either doesn't have a circle on one side, or it has the<BR>
colour yellow on the other."</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
I expect that this would have worse results, if possible.&nbsp; My students always found "or" even harder to read, partly -- as daniyl notes -- because of the XOR reading (not actually as common as one might think, but dominating in our thoughts) and partly because we just don't use "or" all that much in reasoning -- and certainly not with a "not" thrown in.</FONT></HTML>

--part1_85.1ab01339.29faaeed_boundary--

