tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post4597051822244239649..comments2024-03-27T20:37:09.185-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: RisabilityAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-56924989443325235762021-10-27T18:24:50.696-05:002021-10-27T18:24:50.696-05:00Ok that was a misinterpretation by me. Thanks for ...Ok that was a misinterpretation by me. Thanks for the clarification.Arath55https://www.blogger.com/profile/07398440799143810977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-65187570131875373072021-10-27T16:57:54.160-05:002021-10-27T16:57:54.160-05:00No, predicates apply to objects.No, predicates apply to objects.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-58886914172470245592021-10-27T13:58:18.961-05:002021-10-27T13:58:18.961-05:00Can you not put other predicates within a predicat...Can you not put other predicates within a predicate? The way i styled Mot() is<br />“d motivated implies FS” Arath55https://www.blogger.com/profile/07398440799143810977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-27098708024390498732021-10-27T11:32:07.268-05:002021-10-27T11:32:07.268-05:00Lowercase x is a variable.
I don't understand...Lowercase x is a variable.<br /><br />I don't understand P1 and P2. The Mot() and D() predicates seem to have something other than just names and variables in them.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-51595115788701013902021-10-27T10:58:27.737-05:002021-10-27T10:58:27.737-05:00Thanks for the answer. Also im wondering whats wi...Thanks for the answer. Also im wondering whats with the use of the lowercase x constantly. Does it represent a statement or subject?<br /><br />Also would this be valid? I did this to practice: <br /><br />P1- ∀x(a(c) ⊃(Mot(d(x) ⊃ FS(x)<br />P2-∀x(a(x) ⊃(D(b(x) ⊃SI(x)<br />C- ∴ ∀ x(SI(x) ⊃FS(x)Arath55https://www.blogger.com/profile/07398440799143810977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-51139571183844197812021-10-27T09:42:57.364-05:002021-10-27T09:42:57.364-05:00I don't think you can handle claims like this ...I don't think you can handle claims like this in First Order Logic unless your ontology includes universals or tropes. <br /><br />If appleGrowth and rain are universals, then we can say Spurs(rain,appleGrowth), and if hunger and power are universals, then we can say Ax(Titan(x)→(Motivates(hunger,x) and Motivates(power,x))).<br /><br />With tropes, it's a little more complicated. I think we will need predicates like IsHungerOf(h,x) which says that h is a hunger trope belonging to x.<br /><br />One should be able to do it with Second Order Logic, but I suspect that Second Order Logic basically has a commitment to universals.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-9288071215281228772021-10-26T23:15:05.616-05:002021-10-26T23:15:05.616-05:00Dr. Pruss, this is unrelated but I generally have ...Dr. Pruss, this is unrelated but I generally have a problem turning a grammatical format into a symbolic form in relation to pred calc. So if I could give you an example for u to turn it in symbolic form. I think I would be able to grasp it.<br /><br />So if you could, could you translate this? <br />Ex1: Apple growth is spurred by rain<br />Ex2: All titans are motivated by hunger and power<br /><br />Arath55https://www.blogger.com/profile/07398440799143810977noreply@blogger.com