Author: martin fierz
Date: 01:59:19 12/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 19, 2003 at 00:22:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 18, 2003 at 18:53:27, martin fierz wrote: > >>On December 18, 2003 at 16:02:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On December 18, 2003 at 12:27:14, martin fierz wrote: >>> >>>>On December 18, 2003 at 09:41:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>>Basically, I disagree with the reasoning that lead the ICGA to the decision, >>>>>>but I disagree with all people that think the decision was unreasonable. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>That is simply an impossible statement to understand. >>>> >>>>this is so simple to understand that it's impossible to understand that you >>>>don't understand it :-) >>>> >>>>we're back to logic class: >>>>"bad reasoning A leading to some decision X" does not mean "decision X is >>>>unreasonable". >>> >>>This isn't logic. "I disagree with the reasoning" but "I don't think the >>>result was unreasonable". The "reasoning" is the only thing that _led_ >>>to the ridiculous "decision"... >> >>of course this is logic. > >No it isn't. This is what Omid tried to turn it into, but it is _not_. >None of the logic stuff applies here. The statement is simply taken at >face value... yes it is. oh, we are down to "no ist isn't" and "yes it is" :-) we are talking about GCPs simple sentence that he disagrees with the reasoning but doesn't find the decision unreasonable. you say this sentence is impossible to understand. that is the context. forget about omid. forget about graz. e.g. say a guy runs over and kills a pedestrian in his car when he's drunk, and during the investigation the police finds out that he evaded taxes in the millions of $$$. in most western countries the guy will go to prison because he evaded taxes, not because he hit someone with his car and that person died. now for me that is completely unreasonable (i think killing someone is worse than evading taxes), but the final result, the guy ends up in prison, is the same as i would have decided. cheers martin >> as a student i was in an oral math exam and should have >>delivered some kind of proof. i made an attempt, and the professor said: "it's >>intuitive, but it's not a proof". so basically i was giving an argument that X >>was true, but the argument was not correct. which changes *nothing* about the >>truth of X. >> > > >Fine, but that is in a logic class. This is _not_ a class, and statements >are taken in their normal semantic content, not analyzed as though they >were based in predicate calculus or whatever... > >IE "If they thought they had a chance to win, they would have come". There >is no need to get into p->q there. The implication is quite clear. And no >logic is going to change the base semantic content of that statement. The >problem comes in making an assumption that the basic statement is true. It >is not. So no amount of analysis using normal logic is going to reveal anything >of use... > > > >>i know what you mean of course. but to discuss about decision X itself should >>have absolutely nothing to do with the argument/reasoning that led there. >> >>cheers >> martin >> >> >> >>> >>>> >>>>BTW, the arbiter's decision is always final in *lots* of activities, e.g. in >>>>most team sports. it can be wrong, but it's the arbiter's decision. you have to >>>>live with it... >>> >>>Yes, but in most cases the arbiter is competent to arbitrate. :) >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>cheers >>>> martin
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.