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

VideCorSpoon

Wed 3 Sep, 2008 03:54 pm
@Alanocrates,
The main thing to get down with the truth probability matrix is that the way in which the T's and F's are arranged in such a way where all the possible combinations are set before you. Honestly, it really isn't that important to get into the finer points of the truth combination.

Just remember this when you practice truth tables.

1.IDENTIFY HOW MANY VARIABLES YOU HAVE. - If you have one variable, you will have two possible combinations (i.e. T and F). For two variables, 4 combinations, three variables 8 combinations etc.

2.DEPENDING ON HOW MANY VARIABLES YOU HAVE, FILL OUT EACH COLUMN WITH THE GRADUAL T AND F COMBINATIONS

3.FILL OUT EACH COLUMNS PATTERN ACCORDING TO ITS PLACE IN THE TRUTH POSSIBILITY MARTIX - basically, the first listed variable wil have T,F,T,F,etc. Second variable will have T,T,F,F,T,T,F,F,etc. Third variable will have T,T,T,T,F,F,F,F,etc. See the pattern.

But you certainly do not need to know math skills in order to do logic. At least propositional logic at any rate. And if you do run into any problems, post a question in the thread or send a public or private message to me at any time. I'm happy to help you out, so it's absolutely no problem. If you are having problems with your homework or pretest questions, just let me know and I'll help you hammer them out. Also, welcome to the forum!

Holiday20310401

Wed 1 Oct, 2008 08:30 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
Why is there only true and false in validating an argument? I mean why can't there be like a superposition of the two?

Can intuition be used in logic where truth and false can only be probable for only some of the required premises are attained?

If we worked the premises as variables in an equation, can I have 3 of 4 variables and solve for the fourth? This is ofcourse assuming that I know there are only 4 premises to be attained, but perhaps I can just know this because I have the conclusion already, or is there a way to devise it without the conclusion?

You know how you can find two variables by having two equations represented in the same system, inference, rules, whatever...

Well I suppose this would only work for a known/closed set of variables/premises if I wanted to find two premises by knowing only the rest, but there is only one equation or sentence where there are premises, essentially.

So, can I say ok: I have two statements which I know belong to the same sort of system (which I am lost on how to define such the closed system is, perhaps a book?, a mind?, a reality?). And in each of these statements I have 2 premises that need finding, and I don't have the conclusion; but rather, I have the axiom that defines the system the statements are expressed in.

Does the axiom have value, because it is a closed system, even if lets say, I can only have an intuitive grasp on it. (Or does it become undefined because intuitive systems must by open, because not all the information can ever be known, once the info is all known, then it is converted to a different system that would not be intuitive, rather instictual I presume).

Also, lets say I can label each statement I have by a theme

And lets say that one is able to intuitively grasp all the themes (ex. morality, pride, love, duality, reprisal) required in the system (again, back to mind, reality, book), because all one may want to do is come to a conclusion of the intermingling of the themes that can be found out through the matrix of statements they create on one another.

And... dang it!:brickwall::brickwall::brickwall: I just lost my train of thought that made sense to me a second ago. :depressed:

I wanted to show something like how if I had all the themes represented as statements that intuitively one could grasp the parallel effects they actually have on one another as the connectives in the statements,...

then, with only the connectives, and 1 theme, and of course the names of the themes I wanted to find meaning to, I could reason any themes and their matrix of statements I wanted.

Hmm... does anybody understand what I might be trying to deal with here?, because I have stumped myself, and probably don't understand the basics of logic to come to these seemingly absurd terms.

Holiday20310401

Wed 15 Oct, 2008 06:54 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Vide,

When you say truth probability matrix , can I sort of "multiply" two probability matrix's together of the same system, and do they have to have the same inherent statement type, like conjunction or disjunction or negation etc.

Or is there really no such thing as multiplying matrixes persee because multiplication is an arithmetical function. So perhaps you could use functions negation, disjunction, conjunction, etc... on two matrices?

VideCorSpoon

Wed 15 Oct, 2008 07:07 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Not that I am aware of. The probability matrix is just a preset of truth values you will encounter for a certain number of variables. Within the truth probability matrix, it really does not matter what type of connective you have, only how many specific variables you have.

So I don't think that you can multiple opposing matrices. But then again, there may be away to do it... I don't know how, but there may be.

Still, interesting point.

Superleibniz

Wed 10 Jun, 2009 04:49 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
Vide, Thank you so much for the logic symposium, I enjoy it immensely! I am using Horton's logic book and it is a lot similar to the method being used here. It is really help me out! Thanks again!

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