From owner-cse584-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Tue Apr 3 00:11:16 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l334BF4f010186 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2007 00:11:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front3.acsu.buffalo.edu (coldfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.6.89]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l334BCW6001368 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2007 00:11:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 342 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2007 04:11:12 -0000 Received: from mailscan5.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.137) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 3 Apr 2007 04:11:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 23032 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2007 04:11:11 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 3 Apr 2007 04:11:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 4957 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2007 04:10:58 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 3 Apr 2007 04:10:58 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 4328754 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Tue, 3 Apr 2007 00:10:58 -0400 Delivered-To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@listserv.buffalo.edu Received: (qmail 15635 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2007 04:08:06 -0000 Received: from mailscan6.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.95) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 3 Apr 2007 04:08:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 9941 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2007 04:08:06 -0000 Received: from hadar.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.1) by smtp1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 3 Apr 2007 04:08:06 -0000 Received: from hadar.cse.Buffalo.EDU (ag33@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hadar.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l3347Uqh014469; Tue, 3 Apr 2007 00:07:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from ag33@localhost) by hadar.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l3347U4v014468; Tue, 3 Apr 2007 00:07:30 -0400 (EDT) References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-UB-Relay: (hadar.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 00:07:29 -0400 Reply-To: Albert Goldfain Sender: "Philosophy of Computer Science, Spring 2007" From: Albert Goldfain Subject: Re: some comments on pp4 Comments: To: Mike Prentice To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU In-Reply-To: Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (hadar.cse.buffalo.edu) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1335; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/3003/Mon Apr 2 23:15:48 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 2956 Yes, as you said there is a distinction between legal and logical analysis. Just assume that the argument author is a lawyer who must accept laws as truths. You should try to analyze the argument logically (see the hints dr. rapaport sent) but for the sake of analysis you should take premise 8 as true because the argument-author (and all law abiding citizens :)) is *forced* into accepting it as true. Still, in premise 9, I would interpret the "other relevant differences" clause as "other *computational* differences" not "other *legal* differences". Albert On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Mike Prentice wrote: > The trouble, as I understand it, is that we are given legal reasons to > believe certain premises. So in my view, we must examine the argument > from two perspectives, logical truth and legal truth, which do not > always cohere. That is the path I took in my paper, where I took > "other relevant difference" to include a legal component to maintain > consistency with the argument analysis. > > If we are to ignore legal differences, it makes for a different > analysis and it's good to clear this up before the revision. > > -- Mike Prentice > > On 4/2/07, Albert Goldfain wrote: > > Premise #9 in pp4 states: > > > > "There is no computational or other relevant difference between the > > hardwired computer program and its textual counterpart (except for the > > different media in which they are implemented, one being hardwired and the > > other being written on, say, a piece of paper)." > > > > I got a question after recitation as to how "or other relevant difference" > > should be interpreted. Dr. Rapaport may want to comment if I am > > incorrect, but I interpret this as "other relevant *computational* > > difference" rather than "other relevant *legal* difference". There is > > good reason to add this clause though. After pp2 and pp3, we have seen that > > what counts as computational will depend on the "what is computation?" and > > "is X a computer?" questions....rather than revisit those questions in > > this paper, we can instead just say that if X and Y have "no computational > > or other relevant difference" then they are equivalent under whatever > > model of computation you agree with and using your favorite definition of > > a "computer". > > > > Another thing I wanted to mention: it is important realize that arguments > > with inconsistencies are not necessarily worthless arguments. In proofs > > by contradiction (reductio ad absurdem arguments)...the argument author > > *WANTS* to arrive at an inconsistency to show one of the premises cannot > > be true (i.e., assuming it to be true *leads* to inconsistency). The > > conflict between the law (premise 8) and the final conclusion of pp4 *does > > not* demonstrate that the argument author did not know what they were > > doing...because they may have wanted precisely to demonstrate this > > conflict. > > > > Albert > > > From owner-cse584-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Tue Apr 3 09:59:47 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l33DxlNn015018 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2007 09:59:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front3.acsu.buffalo.edu (coldfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.6.89]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l33Dxec7051864 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2007 09:59:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 28200 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2007 13:59:40 -0000 Received: from mailscan4.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.136) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 3 Apr 2007 13:59:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 28257 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2007 13:59:40 -0000 Received: from defer.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.58) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 3 Apr 2007 13:59:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 4757 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2007 13:59:38 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by defer.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 3 Apr 2007 13:59:38 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 4336028 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Tue, 3 Apr 2007 09:59:38 -0400 Delivered-To: cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu Received: (qmail 5854 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2007 13:59:16 -0000 Received: from mailscan8.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.55) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 3 Apr 2007 13:59:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 25454 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2007 13:59:15 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 3 Apr 2007 13:59:15 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (rapaport@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l33DxFsn014982 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2007 09:59:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l33DxFCU014981 for cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu; Tue, 3 Apr 2007 09:59:15 -0400 (EDT) X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <200704031359.l33DxFCU014981@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 09:59:15 -0400 Reply-To: "William J. Rapaport" Sender: "Philosophy of Computer Science, Spring 2007" From: "William J. Rapaport" Subject: POSITION PAPER 4 To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1335; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SUBJ_ALL_CAPS autolearn=no version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/3006/Tue Apr 3 05:13:36 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 1843 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: POSITION PAPER 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ A student writes: | If 10 conflicts with 8 and 8 is a premise which must be true then how | can it be impossible for the conclusion to be false when all the | premises are true? It seems to me that if 8 is true then 10 must be false. | | Could you please explain. | | Quoting "William J. Rapaport" : | > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Subject: HINTS ON POSITION PAPER 4 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 1. The overall argument consists of 3 "sub"arguments: > > a) 1,2,3; therefore, 4 > b) 5,6; therefore, 7 > c) 4,7,9; therefore, 10 > > 2. All of them are valid (i.e., it is impossible for the premises to > be true and the conclusion to be false). > > 3. But 10 conflicts with 8, which is true. My reply: Where did I say that? :-) I did say that the arguments from 1,2,3 to 4; from 5,6 to 7; and from 4,7,9 to 10 are valid, and I reminded you what "valid" means. The student's comment: | Okay I see what the mix up is. You broke down the arguements as follows: | 1. The overall argument consists of 3 "sub"arguments: | | a) 1,2,3; therefore, 4 | b) 5,6; therefore, 7 | c) 4,7,9; therefore, 10 | My question should have been why is premise 8 not included in any of the | arguements? I included premise 8 when evaluating arguement C and | therefore said the arguement is invailid. And my reply: The order of presentation of an argument (in real life) is not always logically perfect. You have to decide how best to analyze what you read. Hence my hint. By the way, the word is "argument", with only 1 "e" :-) From owner-cse584-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Tue Apr 3 11:34:26 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l33FYQBD022420 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2007 11:34:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front2.acsu.buffalo.edu (warmfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.6.88]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l33FYHYI059075 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2007 11:34:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 15475 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2007 15:34:17 -0000 Received: from mailscan8.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.55) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 3 Apr 2007 15:34:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 23372 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2007 15:34:17 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 3 Apr 2007 15:34:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 10068 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2007 15:34:06 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 3 Apr 2007 15:34:06 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 4341189 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Tue, 3 Apr 2007 11:34:06 -0400 Delivered-To: cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu Received: (qmail 15262 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2007 15:34:04 -0000 Received: from mailscan5.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.137) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 3 Apr 2007 15:34:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 23969 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2007 15:34:03 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 3 Apr 2007 15:34:03 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (rapaport@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l33FY31o022383 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2007 11:34:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l33FY3RS022382 for cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu; Tue, 3 Apr 2007 11:34:03 -0400 (EDT) X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <200704031534.l33FY3RS022382@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 11:34:03 -0400 Reply-To: "William J. Rapaport" Sender: "Philosophy of Computer Science, Spring 2007" From: "William J. Rapaport" Subject: HINTS ON POSITION PAPER 4 To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1336; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SUBJ_ALL_CAPS autolearn=no version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/3007/Tue Apr 3 08:26:03 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 601 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: HINTS ON POSITION PAPER 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ A student writes: | Then may we say that the subarguement includes premise 8 or must we take | the sub arguements as you gave them to us? As you wish; just make clear what you're doing and why. However, I would suggest that you take my hint seriously, unless you feel that a different way of analyzing the argument (or the subarguments [but not any "arguEments" or "subarguEments" :-)]) results in a better analysis. From owner-cse584-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Tue Apr 3 14:52:25 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l33IqOAi007338 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2007 14:52:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front3.acsu.buffalo.edu (coldfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.6.89]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l33IqLJL073727 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2007 14:52:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 26257 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2007 18:52:21 -0000 Received: from mailscan6.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.95) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 3 Apr 2007 18:52:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 26198 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2007 18:52:20 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 3 Apr 2007 18:52:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 20206 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2007 18:52:05 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 3 Apr 2007 18:52:05 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 4348331 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Tue, 3 Apr 2007 14:52:05 -0400 Delivered-To: cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu Received: (qmail 12113 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2007 18:52:05 -0000 Received: from mailscan6.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.95) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 3 Apr 2007 18:52:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 22432 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2007 18:52:05 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 3 Apr 2007 18:52:05 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (rapaport@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l33Iq4f4007311 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2007 14:52:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l33Iq475007310 for cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu; Tue, 3 Apr 2007 14:52:04 -0400 (EDT) X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <200704031852.l33Iq475007310@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 14:52:04 -0400 Reply-To: "William J. Rapaport" Sender: "Philosophy of Computer Science, Spring 2007" From: "William J. Rapaport" Subject: POSITION PAPER 4 To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1029; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SUBJ_ALL_CAPS autolearn=no version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/3007/Tue Apr 3 08:26:03 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 2515 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: POSITION PAPER 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ A student writes: | From all these postings to the list-serv, it seems like PP4 is providing | quite a challenge for other students as well as me!! I was reading through | some of your previous posts while trying to revise my paper, and I came | across a few questions...You posted the following, my comments/questions | being with *** | | 1. The overall argument consists of 3 "sub"arguments: | > | > a) 1,2,3; therefore, 4 | > b) 5,6; therefore, 7 | > c) 4,7,9; therefore, 10 | > | > 2. All of them are valid (i.e., it is impossible for the premises to | > be true and the conclusion to be false). | > | > 3. But 10 conflicts with 8, which is true. | > | > 4. Therefore, 10 is false. | > | > 5. Therefore, at least one of 4, 7, 9 is false! | | *** I believe that 9 is false. OK--that's fair. | 6. But if 4 is false, then at least one of 1, 2, 3 is false! | > | > 7. And if 7 is false, then at least one of 5, 6 is false! | | *** You say nothing here about "if 9 is false..." Does that mean that | premise 9 cannot be false? I didn't mention 9 here, because 7 follows from 5 and 6 (9 is not one of the premises supporting 7). So, if you disagree with 7, then you have to disagree with at least one of 5, 6. You can also, of course, disagree with 9. | 8. So, which ones are false? And why do you think so? | > | > 9. Alternatively, if you are firmly convinced, for good reason, | > that 1,2,3,5,6 are all true, then you must think that the law (as | > expressed in 3,6, and especially 8) must be changed. How should it be | > changed? | | | *** I believe that 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 are all true, but don't believe that the | law needs to be changed. I believe that 10 is false because it contradicts | a true statement (premise 8) and follows from a false statement (premise | 9). Does the argument I'm making not make sense? If you believe 1,2,3,5,6, and if you believe that the arguments are all valid (which I have hinted that they are :-), then you are logically obligated to believe 10, because 10 follows from 4,7,9; and because 4 follows from 1,2,3; and because 7 follows from 5,6. Therefore, 10 follows from 1,2,3,5,6, and 9. You can, of course, disagree with 9. | I just wanted to clarify if I am missing something somewhere. Thanks a lot | for your input, and all your hints on this paper so far.