John Noble (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
jackofallgeeks) wrote2004-03-08 05:38 pm
jackofallgeeks) wrote2004-03-08 05:38 pm
That's a Bunch of Horseshit! Lando Calrissian Was a Black Guy!
Midterm Woes Continued...
Andrew,
"Logically equivalent" is a term that we learnt from the text and in class; it is a term used by logicians to convey a precise meaning. What Section A of the exam was testing was whether you know and are conversant with that terminology. For that reason "equal" is not an acceptable answer, even if it were synonymous with "equivalent".
With that said, take a look again at the definition you quoted me. Do you think that the following two propositions are _identical_ in logical denotation?
No Republican is a Democrat.
No Democrat is a Republican.
The truth of one implies the truth of the other, but each asserts something different. The first proposition asserts something about Republicans, the latter about Democrats. I wouldn't call them equal (i.e., identical or the same).
-----
G. Doolan
School of Philosophy
The Catholic University of America
Dr. Doolan,
It still seems to come down to a game of word play, and the fact that 'equal' and 'equivalent' are not only synonyms of each other but also that the same definition of 'equal' you wish to discredit uses the exact word 'equivalent' casts something of a shadow of doubt onto the issue. Additionally, 'No Republican is a Democrat' and 'No Democrat is a Republican' may have a slightly different sense to them, they still assert the same thing (namely, A and B are mutually exclusive), which I understand is precisely why they are logically equivalent.
Having stated this, and noting the assumption that we were to be tested on knowledge of the particular terminology, along with the fact that two points is all that's at stake, I concede the point. That is, it is conceivable that 'equal' and 'logically equivalent,' as a term rather than a notion, are not interchangeable.
-Andrew
So, yeah, he's not backing down on it. Which I can almost respect, in as far as it's good to hold to one's possition. At the same time, if you're pattently wrong, admit it. I'm not worried about this course, I feel I have a good grasp of logic, and a 93 isn't a bad grade. I just don't appreciate the abuse of wordplay, especially bad wordplay.
-smirk- Learnt isn't even a word...
Andrew,
"Logically equivalent" is a term that we learnt from the text and in class; it is a term used by logicians to convey a precise meaning. What Section A of the exam was testing was whether you know and are conversant with that terminology. For that reason "equal" is not an acceptable answer, even if it were synonymous with "equivalent".
With that said, take a look again at the definition you quoted me. Do you think that the following two propositions are _identical_ in logical denotation?
No Republican is a Democrat.
No Democrat is a Republican.
The truth of one implies the truth of the other, but each asserts something different. The first proposition asserts something about Republicans, the latter about Democrats. I wouldn't call them equal (i.e., identical or the same).
-----
G. Doolan
School of Philosophy
The Catholic University of America
Dr. Doolan,
It still seems to come down to a game of word play, and the fact that 'equal' and 'equivalent' are not only synonyms of each other but also that the same definition of 'equal' you wish to discredit uses the exact word 'equivalent' casts something of a shadow of doubt onto the issue. Additionally, 'No Republican is a Democrat' and 'No Democrat is a Republican' may have a slightly different sense to them, they still assert the same thing (namely, A and B are mutually exclusive), which I understand is precisely why they are logically equivalent.
Having stated this, and noting the assumption that we were to be tested on knowledge of the particular terminology, along with the fact that two points is all that's at stake, I concede the point. That is, it is conceivable that 'equal' and 'logically equivalent,' as a term rather than a notion, are not interchangeable.
-Andrew
So, yeah, he's not backing down on it. Which I can almost respect, in as far as it's good to hold to one's possition. At the same time, if you're pattently wrong, admit it. I'm not worried about this course, I feel I have a good grasp of logic, and a 93 isn't a bad grade. I just don't appreciate the abuse of wordplay, especially bad wordplay.
-smirk- Learnt isn't even a word...
Buuut....
He has a good point. If when he wrote the exam, his goal with section A was to see if you knew and could use the terminology you learned in class... and you did not use the particular terminology used in class, then yes. You are wrong. And he did give you what you wanted, a better explanation of why the points were lost. (All of which you really say in the 2nd letter there anyways... I think... lots of big words)
Along with that point, your letters to him were well written and respectful and all that, so kudos to you. You explained your point well.
Have a loverly day!
Re: Buuut....
Also, "learnt" IS a word. Not a common word here, but still a word.
I also agree that 93 is not a bad game. You're doin' fine, don't make waves.
Re: Buuut....
Heh, but I like making waves. And yeah, like I said, 93 isn't bad and I'm not concerned about it, it's really just the principle of the thing...
Re: Buuut....
8^)
no subject
-giggles- But yes, I like big words, and formal, considerae speach. One might say I long for a time past.... -laughs-