| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Logic Forum » A Curious Question...
Page 1 of 3 Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Lester Zick... |
 Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 1:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
A Curious Question
~v~~
Is there anything which is not predicated of "not"?
~v~~ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 1:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 10, 1:31 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot... at (no spam) nowhere.net> wrote:
Quote: A Curious Question
~v~~
Is there anything which is not predicated of "not"?
~v~~
Well, since anything that is predicated is predicated of a subject,
and "not" is not a subject, it follows that everything is not
predicated of "not".
Two dollars, please.
Next question.
PD |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Chris Menzel... |
| Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 1:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 10 May 2008 11:49:09 -0700 (PDT), PD <TheDraperFamily at (no spam) gmail.com>
said:
Quote: On May 10, 1:31 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot... at (no spam) nowhere.net> wrote:
A Curious Question ~v~~
Is there anything which is not predicated of "not"?
~v~~
Well, since anything that is predicated is predicated of a subject,
and "not" is not a subject, it follows that everything is not
predicated of "not".
Didn't you just predicate "not being a subject" of "not"? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Lester Zick... |
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 1:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 10 May 2008 11:49:09 -0700 (PDT), PD
<TheDraperFamily at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On May 10, 1:31 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot... at (no spam) nowhere.net> wrote:
A Curious Question
~v~~
Is there anything which is not predicated of "not"?
~v~~
Well, since anything that is predicated is predicated of a subject,
and "not" is not a subject, it follows that everything is not
predicated of "not".
Except, as Edward Green points out below, "not" is a perfectly good
subject. One might, in fact, be hard pressed to find any predicate
which cannot be subject to other predicates. That's what a subject is.
Quote: Two dollars, please.
Check's in the mail.
Who's in charge here?
~v~~ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Uncle Al... |
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 1:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Lester Zick wrote:
Quote:
On Sat, 10 May 2008 19:51:51 +0000 (UTC), Chris Menzel
cmenzel at (no spam) remove-this.tamu.edu> wrote:
On Sat, 10 May 2008 11:49:09 -0700 (PDT), PD <TheDraperFamily at (no spam) gmail.com
said:
On May 10, 1:31 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot... at (no spam) nowhere.net> wrote:
A Curious Question ~v~~
Is there anything which is not predicated of "not"?
~v~~
Well, since anything that is predicated is predicated of a subject,
and "not" is not a subject, it follows that everything is not
predicated of "not".
Didn't you just predicate "not being a subject" of "not"?
As Paul is rather sensitive, we try not to be too critical.
Magnetically aligning the nuclear spins in sample of aluminum metal
(spin = +5/2, 100% isotopic abundance) gives it a negative temp
kelvin. What difference does that make? Ditto a sample tube of goo
in an NMR- proton, deuteron C-13, nitrogen, fluorine, phosphorus...
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| John Jones |
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 5:18 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 26 Oct 2004
Posts: 4263
|
Lester Zick wrote:
Quote: On Fri, 16 May 2008 20:46:20 +0100, John Jones <jonescardiff at (no spam) aol.com
wrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
A Curious Question
~v~~
Is there anything which is not predicated of "not"?
~v~~
Any object you care to mention is not predicated of not.
Would you care to mention some and explain to us exactly how they're
not predicated of not?
'Not' is not predicated of any object, but it is predicated of an
objects framework. So 'no red car', could mean any object except a red
car -provided that such an object has a spatiotemporal framework, like
the red car.
If an object is
Quote: predicated of not, then we are simply talking about another object.
Clever but true. Especially since we're not talking about anything but
things.
~v~~ |
|
|
| Back to top |
  
|
| N... |
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 11:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 10 May, 19:49, PD <TheDraperFam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On May 10, 1:31 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot... at (no spam) nowhere.net> wrote:
A Curious Question
~v~~
Is there anything which is not predicated of "not"?
~v~~
Well, since anything that is predicated is predicated of a subject,
and "not" is not a subject, it follows that everything is not
predicated of "not".
Two dollars, please.
Next question.
PD
anything to do with transative and intransative verbs in any way? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| tadchem... |
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 11:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 10, 2:31 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot... at (no spam) nowhere.net> wrote:
Quote: A Curious Question
~v~~
Is there anything which is not predicated of "not"?
~v~~
Any interjection.
"Not" is an modifier which can apply to nouns or pronouns ("That is
not a ball.", "This is not it."), verbs ("I will not do that."),
adjectives ("CO2 is not green."), adverbs ("You are not intelligently
considering the premise."), conjunctions ("One logical circuit gate is
called a 'not and' or NAND gate."), or prepositions ("I bought it, but
not at the store.").
"Not" is not grammatically compatible with interjections. E.g. "Not
hey!" is non-sensical.
"Not" may be used alone as an interjection in some colloquial use.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| John Jones |
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 4:41 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 26 Oct 2004
Posts: 4263
|
Lester Zick wrote:
Quote: On Wed, 21 May 2008 23:18:09 +0100, John Jones <jonescardiff at (no spam) aol.com
wrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2008 20:46:20 +0100, John Jones <jonescardiff at (no spam) aol.com
wrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
A Curious Question
~v~~
Is there anything which is not predicated of "not"?
~v~~
Any object you care to mention is not predicated of not.
Would you care to mention some and explain to us exactly how they're
not predicated of not?
'Not' is not predicated of any object,
It's "not"?
~v~~
Yes, it's not. I'm fine with that. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Wolf Kirchmeir... |
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 6:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
tadchem wrote:
Quote: On May 10, 2:31 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot... at (no spam) nowhere.net> wrote:
A Curious Question
~v~~
Is there anything which is not predicated of "not"?
~v~~
Any interjection.
"Not" is an modifier which can apply to nouns or pronouns ("That is
not a ball.", "This is not it."), verbs ("I will not do that."),
adjectives ("CO2 is not green."), adverbs ("You are not intelligently
considering the premise."), conjunctions ("One logical circuit gate is
called a 'not and' or NAND gate."), or prepositions ("I bought it, but
not at the store.").
"Not" is not grammatically compatible with interjections. E.g. "Not
hey!" is non-sensical.
"Not" may be used alone as an interjection in some colloquial use.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
In all your examples 'not' is a particle attached to or embedded in a
verb phrase, or more precisely a predicate. Technically, it's an unbound
enclitic. There are a few others, which for the most part express either
negation or emphatic assertion of truth.
In English, we also use bound enclitics which occur only as parts of
words (prefixes, suffixes, and infixes). The logical use of 'not' in
"not and" or "NAND" is jargon for "and ... not..." where "..."
represents the subject and predicate of some proposition.
NB that traditional (grade school) grammars confuse students not because
English grammar is difficult, but because grade school grammars mix
syntactic and semantic definitions of terms and concepts. Fortunately,
high school is not too late to teach/learn a well-formulated grammar, as
my students' Aha! moments amply demonstrated over a 30-year career of
unteaching the nonsense that passes for grammar in Canadian and American
grade schools.
Zick's confusion about "not" as a predicate arises in part from his
imperfect understanding of whatever idiocies he was taught as "English
grammar." He should not be blamed for this, as it takes initiative far
beyond a grade-schooler's years to untangle the mess. IME, most sixth
graders have more than sufficient insight to do so, but they have more
important things to think about, and quite rightly do so. Grammar is an
abstruse and somewhat epicurean hobby.
That should clear things up. ;-)
--
wolf k. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| N... |
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 1:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 23 May, 14:14, Wolf Kirchmeir <wolf... at (no spam) sympatico.ca> wrote:
Quote: N wrote:
On 10 May, 19:49, PD <TheDraperFam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On May 10, 1:31 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot... at (no spam) nowhere.net> wrote:
A Curious Question
~v~~
Is there anything which is not predicated of "not"?
~v~~
Well, since anything that is predicated is predicated of a subject,
and "not" is not a subject, it follows that everything is not
predicated of "not".
Two dollars, please.
Next question.
PD
anything to do with transative and intransative verbs in any way?
No.
"Not" is simply the negator. It means "it is not the case that" (or
whatever expanded version fits the context and syntax.) Traditional
grammar, which is a bloody mess, calls it an adverb, but is it isn't
one. Modern grammars call it an enclitic, ie, a particle that is
attached to (placed next to) various phrases to modify their meaning (in
in this case, their truth value.) In Indo-European languages, there are
also negative affixes, which all indicate some negation of the base
word's meaning: able, unable; use, disuse; symmetry, asymmetry;
establishment, anti-establishment; sense, nonsense; utopia, dystopia;
etc. Etymologically, enclitics are affixes that speakers began to use as
independent particles.
--
wolf k.- Hide quoted text -
yeh, well I'll give that some thought Wolf...but as you know I'm
a graphics/scripts bod (can anyone think up a fancy word
for that I'd be amused to see  ... language and aural/oral
coms isnt my thing...I'm trained in the visuals. However...I did
as I recall, first come into comp.ai with a theory about some
combined theory about script/language and visual perception?
...and then theres mathematics...the silent,silent, nameless
manipulation of 'icons' and their corroborations with the fact,
anyhows...what about syntax, I mean,mathes syntax is
a convention we already know that programmeers and
higher -->higher reasoners will bypass or invent shortcuts
to achieve their aim to communicate? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Wolf Kirchmeir... |
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 8:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
N wrote:
Quote: On 23 May, 14:14, Wolf Kirchmeir <wolf... at (no spam) sympatico.ca> wrote:
N wrote:
On 10 May, 19:49, PD <TheDraperFam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On May 10, 1:31 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot... at (no spam) nowhere.net> wrote:
A Curious Question
~v~~
Is there anything which is not predicated of "not"?
~v~~
Well, since anything that is predicated is predicated of a subject,
and "not" is not a subject, it follows that everything is not
predicated of "not".
Two dollars, please.
Next question.
PD
anything to do with transative and intransative verbs in any way?
No.
"Not" is simply the negator. It means "it is not the case that" (or
whatever expanded version fits the context and syntax.) Traditional
grammar, which is a bloody mess, calls it an adverb, but is it isn't
one. Modern grammars call it an enclitic, ie, a particle that is
attached to (placed next to) various phrases to modify their meaning (in
in this case, their truth value.) In Indo-European languages, there are
also negative affixes, which all indicate some negation of the base
word's meaning: able, unable; use, disuse; symmetry, asymmetry;
establishment, anti-establishment; sense, nonsense; utopia, dystopia;
etc. Etymologically, enclitics are affixes that speakers began to use as
independent particles.
--
wolf k.- Hide quoted text -
yeh, well I'll give that some thought Wolf...but as you know I'm
a graphics/scripts bod (can anyone think up a fancy word
for that I'd be amused to see ... language and aural/oral
coms isnt my thing...I'm trained in the visuals. However...I did
as I recall, first come into comp.ai with a theory about some
combined theory about script/language and visual perception?
..and then theres mathematics...the silent,silent, nameless
manipulation of 'icons' and their corroborations with the fact,
anyhows...what about syntax, I mean,mathes syntax is
a convention we already know that programmeers and
higher -->higher reasoners will bypass or invent shortcuts
to achieve their aim to communicate?
Syntax is just the rules for assembling meaningful bits into wholes.
It's conventional, but the conventions appear to be based on the
space/time of the human body. Eg, sequence is essential parameter of all
syntax; repetition is another. Etc.
Syntactic rules apply as much to non-linear as to linear symbolic
systems. Partial violation of syntax produces new/unexpected meanings.
Eg, "perspective" is a syntax of plane objects on a surface. When that
syntax is partially violated, we get optical illusions. Non-perspective
paintings look odd to people used to perspective, but they have their
own syntax. Then there's the syntax of comic-book narrative (closely
allied to and predating the narrative syntax of movies). Consider also
the syntax of Sign, which locates the symbols in 3D space as well as
time. Anyone who has walked through a great building knows that there is
also a syntax of space. Etc.
Syntax relies on demarcators, which identify/group syntactic units. Such
demarcators may be ambiguous, ie, signify differently in different
semantic contexts. This explains how Chomsky's concept of "deep syntax"
is wrongheaded. It's an effect of his assuming that written symbols
represent the language. They don't. Writing abstracts language; or, if
you like, translating language from sound to sight leaves things out.
The ambiguities Chomsky proffers all resolve as soon as the examples are
spoken aloud: in English we use tonal/stress/attack patterns to resolve
the ambiguities of sequence. Such patterns are only partly represented
in writing, as in "That black bird is not a blackbird."
What does all this have to do with AI? Well, on the one hand, AI labours
under an undue focus on manipulating symbol systems, forgetting that
symbol systems are abstractions, not representations (and that
representations are always incomplete, anyhow.) On the other hand, the
architecture of a system determines the syntax that is "percieved". But
these are muddy concepts, which I haven't had time to think through.
--
wolf k. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Robert J. Kolker... |
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 9:25 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
Quote: What does all this have to do with AI? Well, on the one hand, AI labours
under an undue focus on manipulating symbol systems, forgetting that
symbol systems are abstractions, not representations (and that
representations are always incomplete, anyhow.) On the other hand, the
architecture of a system determines the syntax that is "percieved". But
these are muddy concepts, which I haven't had time to think through.
Which is why AI has been a failure. We have had some marignally useful
symbol manipulators fall out of AI efforts, but real honest to go,
autnomous Artificial Intelligence eludes us, and you have stated
precisely why. The real world is not a collection of propositions, which
are essentially symbols for ideas that are cooked up in organic brains
by underlying neural processes. Until we have mastered the neural
processes we shall not have man-made intelligence other than the natural
kind and way -- by making babies.
Bob Kolker |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| marika... |
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Lester Zick" <dontbother at (no spam) nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:u4vf34lurhhtcd1t28k50gsgsd8tsnilhk at (no spam) 4ax.com...
Quote:
'Not' is not predicated of any object,
It's "not"?
Perhaps we will have to file an amicus brief, or intervene in some manner?
mk5000
"(I force my eyes open, and now who has changed?
I feel different, so different today)
Did you really change your mind?
Could this be your only crime? "--sleater kinney, burn don't freeze |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Anthony Buckland... |
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"marika" <marika5000 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5fadnaY7Sp47ptrVnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d at (no spam) rcn.net...
Quote:
"Lester Zick" <dontbother at (no spam) nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:u4vf34lurhhtcd1t28k50gsgsd8tsnilhk at (no spam) 4ax.com...
'Not' is not predicated of any object,
It's "not"?
Perhaps we will have to file an amicus brief, or intervene in some manner?
...
The essential question will become the Clintonian
"It all depends on what isn't 'not'". |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 1 of 3 Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Aug 30, 2008 12:26 am
|
|