|
|
 | | From: | Don H | | Subject: | Truth tables? | | Date: | Sun, 16 Jan 2005 16:20:46 GMT |
|
|
 | Does a "truth table" really tell us anything new?
If, for example, a bivalent conjunctive truth table has one statement which
is true, and another false, is the result "false" - or partly true and
partly false?
But it all works! you may say. Yes, and very handy when dealing with the
0/1 of a computer. Yet, a computer will follow any rules you devise,
whether true or false, provided you are consistent.
======================================
|
|
| | From: | Gregory Toomey | | Subject: | Re: Truth tables? | | Date: | Mon, 17 Jan 2005 10:14:02 +1000 |
|
|
| Don H wrote:
> Does a "truth table" really tell us anything new?
> If, for example, a bivalent conjunctive truth table has one statement
> which is true, and another false, is the result "false" - or partly true
> and partly false?
> But it all works! you may say. Yes, and very handy when dealing with
> the
> 0/1 of a computer. Yet, a computer will follow any rules you devise,
> whether true or false, provided you are consistent.
> ======================================
If standarn Booloean logic, you get 16 truth tables for a binary relation eg
and, or, nor, nand, xor, material implication (=>),equivalence, etc.
And you have the equivalent set-theoretoc equivalents eg union,
intersection, etc
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_table
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_logic
All this has been known from the 1800s.
gtoomey
|
|
| | From: | Don H | | Subject: | Re: Truth tables? | | Date: | Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:00:56 GMT |
|
|
| Yes, I'd agree (if that's what you are implying) that truth tables are
designed for computer use, rather than to tell us anything about truth as
such.
It reduces truth to a binary level - even if it has to squeeze a *bit* in
the process. I'd claim a trinary system would be more accurate.
================================
"Gregory Toomey" wrote in message
news:350ealF4f0talU1@individual.net...
> Don H wrote:
>
> > Does a "truth table" really tell us anything new?
> > If, for example, a bivalent conjunctive truth table has one statement
> > which is true, and another false, is the result "false" - or partly true
> > and partly false?
> > But it all works! you may say. Yes, and very handy when dealing with
> > the
> > 0/1 of a computer. Yet, a computer will follow any rules you devise,
> > whether true or false, provided you are consistent.
> > ======================================
>
> If standarn Booloean logic, you get 16 truth tables for a binary relation
eg
> and, or, nor, nand, xor, material implication (=>),equivalence, etc.
>
> And you have the equivalent set-theoretoc equivalents eg union,
> intersection, etc
>
> See
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_table
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_logic
>
> All this has been known from the 1800s.
>
> gtoomey
|
|
|
