# 2+2=...

1. Philosophy Forum
2. » Logic
3. » 2+2=...
4. » Page 2

Kielicious

Mon 28 Dec, 2009 06:49 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;115084 wrote:
Oh crap, my d, e, f, and g are synonyms of 2, not 2+2. Whoops.

Aedes = dum

True but I read between the lines and avoid the quibble.

Fil Albuquerque

Mon 28 Dec, 2009 06:52 pm
@Reconstructo,
... 2+2 = 2+2 ... or, anything else by other standards...:a-ok:

Aedes

Mon 28 Dec, 2009 07:01 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;115083 wrote:
They certainly are not synonymous.
The author of "Huckleberry Finn" is the author of "Tom Sawyer" and, "The author of "Huckleberry Finn" is the author of "Huckleberry Finn" , are equivalent propositions. But they are certainly not synonymous propositions. Therefore, "equivalent propositions" is not synonymous with, "synonymous propositions".
"Synonym" usually refers to syntactical equivalence, not propositional equivalence.

---------- Post added 12-28-2009 at 08:02 PM ----------

Kielicious;115089 wrote:
True but I read between the lines and avoid the quibble.
That's best, because I leave it blank between the lines. It avoids trouble.

ACB

Mon 28 Dec, 2009 07:21 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;115084 wrote:
Oh crap, my d, e, f, and g are synonyms of 2, not 2+2. Whoops.

Actually, your d and e are synonyms of 2; your g is (approximately) a synonym of 2+2; and your f is a synonym of neither.

---------- Post added 12-29-2009 at 01:27 AM ----------

Aedes;115099 wrote:
"Synonym" usually refers to syntactical equivalence, not propositional equivalence.

"He knows that the author of Huckleberry Finn is the author of Tom Sawyer" can be false when "He knows that the author of Huckleberry Finn is the author of Huckleberry Finn" is true. Does "syntactical equivalence" allow for this?

kennethamy

Mon 28 Dec, 2009 07:45 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;115085 wrote:
K, I already used the thesaurus. Argue with the thesaurus, not me.

The Thesauraus gives families of words which resemble each other in meaning. It doesn't give synonyms. You ought to look at the theory of thesaurus writing. No good writer who was looking for another term to express a similar idea would just pick up a word from the family at random and use it. There are important differences even within the family of terms. There is no need to argue with the Thesaurus because you don't know what goes on in the Thesaurus.

Zetherin

Mon 28 Dec, 2009 07:49 pm
@mister kitten,
kennethamy wrote:
The Thesauraus gives families of words which resemble each other in meaning. It doesn't give synonyms

Um, isn't that what synonyms are? Different words with identical or similar meanings?

kennethamy

Mon 28 Dec, 2009 07:58 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;115119 wrote:
Um, isn't that what synonyms are? Different words with identical or similar meanings?

The same meaning. But that is not what the Thesaurus gives. It gives similar meanings, depending on context.

But to say of two propositions that they are equivalent is not to say that they are synonymous, but that they have the same truth values. So "equivalent" and "synonymous" are not synonymous terms. Although, in some contexts, it may not matter which of them you use. But, of course, that does not make them synonymous terms. Just as in some contexts it does not matter whether you use, "my uncle" or, "my father's brother". But those two terms are not, of course, synonymous.

Reconstructo

Mon 28 Dec, 2009 08:20 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;115117 wrote:
The Thesauraus gives families of words which resemble each other in meaning. It doesn't give synonyms. You ought to look at the theory of thesaurus writing. No good writer who was looking for another term to express a similar idea would just pick up a word from the family at random and use it. There are important differences even within the family of terms. There is no need to argue with the Thesaurus because you don't know what goes on in the Thesaurus.

The largest and most trusted free online thesaurus. Quickly find accurate and up-to-date synonyms, antonyms, and related words at Thesaurus.com.

kennethamy

Mon 28 Dec, 2009 08:26 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;115137 wrote:
The largest and most trusted free online thesaurus. Quickly find accurate and up-to-date synonyms, antonyms, and related words at Thesaurus.com.

Yes. What they mean by "synonym" is "phrase similar in meaning" or, "phrase that means the same in some contexts, although not in other contexts". That is not what we are talking about. Or, at least, not what I was talking about. Strictly speaking, "synonymous" means "identical meaning" not, "sort of means the same thing".

Reconstructo

Mon 28 Dec, 2009 08:27 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;115139 wrote:
Yes. What they mean by "synonym" is "phrase similar in meaning" or, "phrase that means the same in some contexts, although not in other contexts". That is not what we are talking about. Or, at least, not what I was talking about. Strictly speaking, "synonymous" means "identical meaning" not, "sort of means the same thing".

Main Entry:
Pronunciation: \-məs\
Date: 1610
1 : having the character of a synonym; also : alike in meaning or significance
2 : having the same connotations, implications, or reference <to runners, Boston is synonymous with marathon - Runners World>

Main Entry:
Pronunciation: \ˈsi-nə-ˌnim\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English sinonyme, from Latin synonymum, from Greek synōnymon, from neuter of synōnymos synonymous, from syn- + onyma name - more at name
Date: 15th century
1 : one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses
2 a : a word or phrase that by association is held to embody something (as a concept or quality) <a tyrant whose name has become a synonym for oppression> b : metonym
3 : one of two or more scientific names used to designate the same taxonomic group

kennethamy

Mon 28 Dec, 2009 08:36 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;115140 wrote:
Main Entry:
Pronunciation: \-məs\
Date: 1610
1 : having the character of a synonym; also : alike in meaning or significance
2 : having the same connotations, implications, or reference <to runners, Boston is synonymous with marathon - Runners World>

Main Entry:
Pronunciation: \ˈsi-nə-ˌnim\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English sinonyme, from Latin synonymum, from Greek synōnymon, from neuter of synōnymos synonymous, from syn- + onyma name - more at name
Date: 15th century
1 : one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses
2 a : a word or phrase that by association is held to embody something (as a concept or quality) <a tyrant whose name has become a synonym for oppression> b : metonym
3 : one of two or more scientific names used to designate the same taxonomic group

So? There is a loose use of "synonym" (alike in meaning) and there is a strict use of "synonym" (identical in meaning). So what?

Reconstructo

Mon 28 Dec, 2009 08:38 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;115144 wrote:
So? There is a loose use of "synonym" (alike in meaning) and there is a strict use of "synonym" (identical in meaning). So what?

Ewe tail mi..........................

kennethamy

Mon 28 Dec, 2009 08:41 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;115146 wrote:
Ewe tail mi..........................

I am using the strict sense.

Theaetetus

Mon 28 Dec, 2009 08:45 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;115149 wrote:
I am using the strict sense.

Good for you. No one else is.

The dictionary isn't either.

synonym - one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses

ACB

Mon 28 Dec, 2009 08:47 pm
@kennethamy,
This goes back to the question: Is 2+2 synonymous with 4? Answer: It is synonymous in the loose sense, but not in the strict sense, because someone can know that 2+2=2+2 but not know that 2+2=4.

kennethamy

Mon 28 Dec, 2009 08:52 pm
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus;115153 wrote:
Good for you. No one else is.

The dictionary isn't either.

synonym - one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses

The dictionary reports how the word is used by fluent speakers. And what it says here is quite correct. The word is used loosely by fluent speakers of the language. That doesn't mean that philosophers have to use it loosely.

Reconstructo

Mon 28 Dec, 2009 08:53 pm
@mister kitten,
In the loose sense of strict or in the strict sense of loose? I hear the sound of 1.5 hand(s) clapping.

kennethamy

Mon 28 Dec, 2009 09:05 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;115159 wrote:
In the loose sense of strict or in the strict sense of loose? I hear the sound of 1.5 hand(s) clapping.

People often use terms loosely. Suppose I were to say I think you are an idiot. That would be using the word, "idiot" loosely. But if I said that someone with an I.Q. of 50 was an idiot, I would be using the term "idiot" strictly.

Aedes

Mon 28 Dec, 2009 09:24 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;115165 wrote:
if I said that someone with an I.Q. of 50 was an idiot, I would be using the term "idiot" strictly.
No, that wouldn't be strict use of the term idiot, because it's no longer a clinical term. That would be a loose, or at best anachronistic use. The pejorative use has completely supplanted any other modern use of the word, and there is other clinical terminology used to describe someone with an IQ of 50.

Kind of like the word "macaroni". Three hundred years ago "macaroni" meant something like a stylish, affected Englishman.

So according to your convenient criteria, if I order some macaroni and cheese, I'm using the term macaroni "loosely", just like the term "cool" would be "loose" when applied to someone stylish. But if I call that stylish person a macaroni, then hey, I'm being strict.

Bloody brilliant, Ken.

kennethamy

Mon 28 Dec, 2009 09:43 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;115173 wrote:
No, that wouldn't be strict use of the term idiot, because it's no longer a clinical term. That would be a loose, or at best anachronistic use. The pejorative use has completely supplanted any other modern use of the word, and there is other clinical terminology used to describe someone with an IQ of 50.

Kind of like the word "macaroni". Three hundred years ago "macaroni" meant something like a stylish, affected Englishman.

So according to your convenient criteria, if I order some macaroni and cheese, I'm using the term macaroni "loosely", just like the term "cool" would be "loose" when applied to someone stylish. But if I call that stylish person a macaroni, then hey, I'm being strict.

Bloody brilliant, Ken.

I had not realized that "idiot" was no longer technically used to denote those below a certain IQ. But that really doesn't matter, does it. Suppose it still were so used. Then my point would be intact.

The word, "cool" when used in that way is not being used loosely. It just is being used with an entirely different meaning. The same is true of "macaroni".

There is a difference between a word being used loosely, and being used to mean something different.

For instance, I may use the term "bank" (financial institution) to designate a place in my house where I keep my money. That would be a loose use of the term, "bank". But if I used the term "bank" also to designate the side of a river (a river bank) that would be a different use of the term, "bank".

But we are really off-track concerning Godel's theorem. But you do see that it is just nonsense to say that Godel proved we cannot prove any theorem. I can prove theorems in the propositional calculus all day long by the truth table method. It is just very tedious. That is why we can program computers to do it (if we wish). Actually the proofs are too trivial to bother with.

But what Godel showed is that for some theorems no machines can be programmed to prove. Which is why brains (which can prove them) are useful.

1. Philosophy Forum
2. » Logic
3. » 2+2=...
4. » Page 2