Get pedantic on Feeblemind

[Artoomis]

...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 think I may have found your error.

No [cure] until [spells] DOES NOT equal if [cure], then [spell]. That is already assuming exclusivity.

It only means If [spells], then [cure].

 

[PallidPatience]

Until you clean your room, you cannot have a cookie.

How do you get a cookie?

 

[Felix]

Let's see....

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

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

Right?

On step at a time.

Well, the pertinent transformations of "If X, then Y" are:

If not Y, then not X
X only if Y
No X unless Y

So if we define our terms:
X: [Feeblemind state]
Y: [Spell list]
Z: Break Enchantment

Then...

[Feeblemind] until [spell list]

is also:

No [Feeblemind], then [Spell List]
No [Spell List], then [Feeblemind]

Remember that the standard "If X then Y" translates into "No X unless Y". Because we start with "X unless Y", we must apply the negative when we transform it. So it becomes "If no X, then Y".

 

[Felix]

I think I may have found your error.

No [cure] until [spells] DOES NOT equal if [cure], then [spell]. That is already assuming exclusivity.

It only means If [spells], then [cure].

You're claiming "No X until Y" means, "If Y, then X"
"No [cure] until [spells]" == "If [spells], then [cure]".

• In "No X unless Y", Y is a necessary condition for X. Unless Y is present, X cannot be. Yes, this is exclusivity. But I'm not assuming it: it's already there.

• In "If Y, then X", X can be present regardless of Y's existance. Like you said, there can be other reasons for X. This is true. But it is fundamentally different from "No X until Y" where Y was necessary for X.

"No X unless Y" does indeed equal "If X, then Y".

At the very least, this was how it was defined as True in my Critical Thinking textbook, my Intermediate Logic text, and my LSAT prep texts, the last of which I have open in my lap.

 

[Pielorinho]

Until you clean your room, you cannot have a cookie.

How do you get a cookie?

YOu steal it!

"Honey, you know I love you. I'll wait for you until you come home."

Tomorrow, I fall into bed with some floozy. Did I break my word?

X until Y is the form of the phrase above. It's the form of the Feeblemind spell. I contend that, strictly read, if the state described by X is canceled before Y occurs, the statement is false.

Daniel

 

[Artoomis]

...Remember that the standard "If X then Y" translates into "No X unless Y". Because we start with "X unless Y", we must apply the negative when we transform it. So it becomes "If no X, then Y".

Here's the whole problem. X Unless Y is NOT a logic term. It's plain English, and in plain English usage, there are often exceptions.

No cookie until your room is clean. Seems pretty straight forward. Until Uncle Larry hands you a cookie and you eat it. Hmmm.....

Mayeb it shoudl have been, "No cookie until your room is clean ot Uncle Larry hands you a cookie while my back is turned."



Point being you cannot assume exclusivity when the list is written like this. That's assuming too much precision in the language.

Besides, if you attempt to apply that much precision, it quickly breaks down as you start to list out exceptions.

 

[PallidPatience]

I did not say "may not". I said "cannot". There is a big difference between "aren't allowed to" and "aren't able to".

 

[Pielorinho]

No cookie until your room is clean. Seems pretty straight forward. Until Uncle Larry hands you a cookie and you eat it. Hmmm......

Sure, let's look at that. When I told you that you couldn't have a cookie until your room was clean, was I correct, given that your room is still dirty and you're eating a cookie?

Daniel

 

[Felix]

No cookie until your room is clean. Seems pretty straight forward. Until Uncle Larry hands you a cookie and you eat it. Hmmm.....

If it is the case that you get a cookie before you clean your room then the statement, "No cookie until your room is clean" is a false statement. If you apply this argument to the spell, then you must state that:

"Remains in this state until [list of spells] is cast upon him"

Is a false statement. So your position relies upon the wording being false to begin with.

Maybe it should have been, "No cookie until your room is clean or Uncle Larry hands you a cookie while my back is turned."

Are we arguing what the spell says, or what the spell should have said? Because there is no such "or" clause in the Feeblemind spell description.

Point being you cannot assume exclusivity when the list is written like this. That's assuming too much precision in the language.

I am not assuming exclusivity. Exclusivity is hardwired into the language that was used.

Besides, if you attempt to apply that much precision, it quickly breaks down as you start to list out exceptions.

If the language is imprecise, then requiring precision of it is fruitless; this language is not imprecise, nor do I find my argument bogged down by the listing of exceptions.

What exceptions am I listing?

• Spells listed in the Feeblemind spell description

• Future spells that explicitly say they remove the Feeblemind condition

And as long as I stick to the core rules, then the only "exceptions" are those cures listed in the spell description, and those hardly qualify as "exceptions".

 

[Felix]

[ASIDE]

I'd just like to say that the OP must be pleased with himself, because we have done nothing if not gotten Pedantic on Feeblemind!



[/ASIDE]