Get pedantic on Feeblemind

[Felix]

Actually, you DID make a novice logic mistake.

If X then Y does NOT lead to :

If no Y then no X

If beans then fart, does not mean:

If no fart then no beans. Other things can cause farts, right?

You have attempted to use your assumption of exclusivity to prove exclusivity. That is not a valid exercise in logic.

If no Y then No X only works if you ALREADY ASSUMED EXCLUSIVITY. A novice error. But I forgive you.

Heck, I make novice errors too, sometimes, and I am no novice.

Re-read what you've written.

If beans, then fart.
[If ever you eat beans, then you will fart.]

If no fart, then no beans.
[If you haven't farted, then you couldn't have eaten beans, because if you had eaten beans, you would have farted.]

I made no mistake.

If X then Y does transform into If no Y, then no X.

----

Other things can cause farts, right?

Sure.

If Cabbage
If Eggs
If Milk
If Beans
If Brussel Sprouts
If Hot Sauce
If Carbonated Drink

The ending of all of those things can be: "then fart."

But if you don't fart, then you could not have had any of them. Including beans.

If X, then Y <--------> If not Y, then not X

 

[Pielorinho]

Actually, you DID make a novice logic mistake.

If X then Y does NOT lead to :

If no Y then no X

Actually, that's exactly what it leads to. I can't do tables here, but here's the truth table for x->y
-------X---Y---STATEMENT
X->Y--T---T-----T
X->Y--F---T-----T
X->Y--T---T-----T
X->Y--T---F-----F

In other words, if X->Y is true, and Y=F, then X=F

Consider another statement. "If it rains, I'll get wet." If it rains and I do not get wet, the statement is false.

Daniel

 

[Artoomis]

Ferlix: Please do not use quotes for emphaisis in you posts. It makes it harder to quote your points. Use underline or something instead, okay?

My logic is built on the translation of this:

Quote:
The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind.

Into this:

Quote:
Remains in state until [spells].

And thence into the form I use to make logical transformations from, this:

Quote:
No [cure] until [spells].


At this point you've not raised any problems with this translation. By all means, do. If you have a problem with it, or if I've made a mistake, then have at it...

Okay. First, Remains in state until [spells] is valid.

No [cure] until [spells] is also valid.

But in both cases as you progress you proceed as if it read:

No [cure] unless only [spells]

Which is not the way it read.

Let's use a headache and aspirin as an example (and assume the aspirin will actually cure the headache).

The subject remains with a headache until aspirin is used. (True enough, even though other things might cure the headache)

Remains with headache until aspirin. (Still true, as far as it goes)

No relief from headache. until aspirin.

Whoops - not true. Only true if ONLY aspirin could relieve a headache.

Do you see know how your whole argument assumed exclusivity from the start to prove exclusivity?

 

[Thanee]

Clearly it isn't absolutely and irrovocably exclusive, as later texts explicitly revoke the exclusivity.

What later text do you mean?

Which was why I tried to get to the "it is open to interpretation" point, so that folks could perhaps move on. Silly me

Yep, because it's not open to interpretation. The intent and the rules are clear.



Bye
Thanee

 

[Artoomis]

Actually, that's exactly what it leads to. I can't do tables here, but here's the truth table for x->y
-------X---Y---STATEMENT
X->Y--T---T-----T
X->Y--F---T-----T
X->Y--T---T-----T
X->Y--T---F-----F

In other words, if X->Y is true, and Y=F, then X=F

Consider another statement. "If it rains, I'll get wet." If it rains and I do not get wet, the statement is false.

Daniel

Okay, now my head is starting to hurt.

You're right - but Felix is still operating by using his assumption to prove his point, and that does not work.

If X then Y does not in any restict some other variable, "Z," from causing Y.

 

[Artoomis]

...Yep, because it's not open to interpretation. The intent and the rules are clear.



Bye
Thanee

Agreed. You can, of course, use Break Enchament to reverse the effects of Feeblemind.

 

[Artoomis]

Re-read what you've written.

If beans, then fart.
[If ever you eat beans, then you will fart.]

If no fart, then no beans.
[If you haven't farted, then you couldn't have eaten beans, because if you had eaten beans, you would have farted.]

I made no mistake.

If X then Y does transform into If no Y, then no X.

----


Sure.

If Cabbage
If Eggs
If Milk
If Beans
If Brussel Sprouts
If Hot Sauce
If Carbonated Drink

The ending of all of those things can be: "then fart."

But if you don't fart, then you could not have had any of them. Including beans.

If X, then Y <--------> If not Y, then not X

Okay, you're right. Your logic still has a faulty assumption in it , though.

It really comes down to trying to take ordinary English and applying formal logic rules to it - never a really good idea.

 

[Felix]

Please do not use quotes for emphaisis in you posts. It makes it harder to quote your points. Use underline or something instead, okay?

Fair enough.

Do you see now how your whole argument assumed exclusivity from the start to prove exclusivity?

X: [cure]
Y: [spells]
Z: Break Enchantment

The inclusive way to show that Y [spells] produces X [cure] is the form: If Y, then X.

This would allow all manner of other things to produce a cure. Including Break Enchantment. Acutally, most lists of spells in the PHB are of the inclusive sort and my previous argument wouldn't work on them because they are of that If Y, then X form.

But the translation of If Y, then X into a form using "until" is: No Y until X.

Translating that back into English it would be: "No [spells] have been cast until the target is [cured]". This is the way it could have been written inclusively, and it would be true: nobody has cast those spells because he's still afflicted.

But this is not the way it's written in the spell description. It's written as, "No [cure] until [spells][/b]. This then translates into If X, then Y (meaning If [cure], then [spells]). This then translates into If no [spells], then no [cure].

I'm not assuming exclusivity: exclusivity is written into the language. There is no mathmatical difference between "No X unless Y" and "No X unless only Y". They are the same. "Y" is a necessary element before you can get "X".

 

[Artoomis]

Let's see....

[Feeblemind] until [spell list] equals....

If [spell list], then [no Feeblemind].

Right?

On step at a time.

 

[Felix]

If X then Y does not in any restict some other variable, "Z," from causing Y.

Artoomis, I've posted this upthread, and will again.

"If X then Y" does not prevent "If Z, then Y". You are right. But look at the substitutions:

X: [cure]
Y: [spells]
Z: Break Enchantment

"If [cure] then [spells]" does not prevent "If Break Enchantment, then [spells]".

While this is ultimately True, your rebuttal does not make sense as long as the terms are defined this way. And if the terms are re-defined, the letters will simply change places and the Truth of the matter will remain the same.

Okay, you're right.

Thank you for this concession.

Your logic still has a faulty assumption in it , though.

Perhaps post #128 might persuade you that this is not true.

It really comes down to trying to take ordinary English and applying formal logic rules to it - never a really good idea.

Well, you might find out that the language actually means something other than what you thought, but it does not mean that the process of of applying logic isn't a good idea; at least you find out what the text actually says.

For once you do you are in a superior position to change it to suit your preferences.

I just want to say that I'm only arguing about What the rules say, seperate and distinct from What the rules should be. I imagine that I might very well be on your side as far as that argument goes.