[Milton-L] help interpret a line

jfleming at sfu.ca jfleming at sfu.ca
Thu Jan 22 16:54:15 EST 2004


I have just noticed that the post I sent in rely to Gardner a couple of days ago was missing an important element. I seem to have stepped on some HTML genie's toes. 

This is what went:
"The logical form of these claims is something like . Statements of this form -- which might be rewritten -- may indeed be false (as the examples I gave seem to be). They may also, as synthetic claims, be both true and meaningful. (Examples: "the morning star is the evening star"; "a commitment to utilitarianism is not the same as a commitment to communism.") It all depends on what values play the roles of  and ."

This is what was supposed to go: 
"The logical form of these claims is something like A = NOT-A. Statements of this form -- which might be rewritten A = B -- may indeed be false (as the examples I gave seem to be). They may also, as synthetic claims, be both true and meaningful. (Examples: "the morning star is the evening star"; "a commitment to utilitarianism is not the same as a commitment to communism.") It all depends on what values play the roles of A and B."

I hope some people (if not student lurkers) will be patient enough to stick together these poor fragments of truth. J
------------------------
Dr. James Dougal Fleming,
Assistant Professor of English,
Simon Fraser University,
(604) 291-4713

Laissez parler les faits.


More information about the Milton-L mailing list