ISBN: 9781152494626

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustra… More...

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1906 Excerpt: ...and the conclusion will be three truisms which no one would dream of denying. Consider now one of these truisms, say All X is Y. Here, by the usual logical convention, the class X is said to be '' distributed,'' and the class Y ''undistributed.'' But when X and Y are synonyms they denote the same class, so that the same class may, at the same time and in the same proposition; be both ''distributed'' and ''undistributed.'' Does not this sound like a contradiction? Speaking of a certain concrete collection of apples in a certain concrete basket, can we consistently and in the same breath assert that All the apples are already distributed and that All the apples are still undistributed ? Do we get out of the dilemma and secure consistency if on every apple in the basket we stick a ticket X and also a ticket Y? Can we then consistently assert that all the X apples are distributed, but that all the Y apples are undistributed? Clearly not; for every X apple is also a Y apple, and every Y apple an X apple. In ordinary language the classes which we can respectively qualify as distributed and undistributed are mutually exclusive; in the logic of our text-books this is evidently not the case. Students of the traditional logic should therefore disabuse their minds of the idea that the words ''distributed'' and ''undistributed'' necessarily refer to classes mutually exclusive, as they do in everyday speech; or that there is anything but a forced and fanciful connexion between the ''distributed'' and ''undistributed'' of current English and the technical ''distributed'' and ''undisturbed'' of logicians. Now, how came the words ''distributed'' and ''undistributed'' to be employed by logicians in a sense which plainly does not coincide with that usually given... Hugh Maccoll, Books, History, Symbolic Logic And Its Applications Books>History Publisher: London: Longmans, Green Publication date: 1906 Subjects: Logic Notes: This is an OCR reprint. There may be numerous typos or missing text. There are no illustrations or indexes. When you buy the General Books edition of this book you get free trial access to Million-Books.com where you can select from more than a million books for free. You can also preview the book there.<

ISBN: 9781152494626

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustra… More...

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1906 Excerpt: ...and the conclusion will be three truisms which no one would dream of denying. Consider now one of these truisms, say All X is Y. Here, by the usual logical convention, the class X is said to be '' distributed,'' and the class Y ''undistributed.'' But when X and Y are synonyms they denote the same class, so that the same class may, at the same time and in the same proposition; be both ''distributed'' and ''undistributed.'' Does not this sound like a contradiction? Speaking of a certain concrete collection of apples in a certain concrete basket, can we consistently and in the same breath assert that All the apples are already distributed and that All the apples are still undistributed ? Do we get out of the dilemma and secure consistency if on every apple in the basket we stick a ticket X and also a ticket Y? Can we then consistently assert that all the X apples are distributed, but that all the Y apples are undistributed? Clearly not; for every X apple is also a Y apple, and every Y apple an X apple. In ordinary language the classes which we can respectively qualify as distributed and undistributed are mutually exclusive; in the logic of our text-books this is evidently not the case. Students of the traditional logic should therefore disabuse their minds of the idea that the words ''distributed'' and ''undistributed'' necessarily refer to classes mutually exclusive, as they do in everyday speech; or that there is anything but a forced and fanciful connexion between the ''distributed'' and ''undistributed'' of current English and the technical ''distributed'' and ''undisturbed'' of logicians. Now, how came the words ''distributed'' and ''undistributed'' to be employed by logicians in a sense which plainly does not coincide with that usually given... Hugh Maccoll, Books, History, Symbolic Logic And Its Applications Books>History, General Books LLC<