On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Ian Grant <
address@hidden> wrote:
> Now tell me how it is _you_ know that what you did doesn't earn you
> and Richard Stallman a fetching orange jump-suit each, and an
> all-expenses-paid vacation at a Government holiday camp in the South
> East Florida Keys, with power-showers every two hours and where you
> get to listen to the same Eminem song (there is only one) 24 hours a
> day?
Here's a clue. It's from Lewis Carroll's "Symbolic Logic"
http://www.gutenberg.org/2/8/6/9/28696/
(4)
"Of the prisoners who were put on their trial at the last
Assizes, all, against whom the verdict 'guilty' was
returned, were sentenced to imprisonment;
Some, who were sentenced to imprisonment, were also
sentenced to hard labour".
Let Univ. be "the prisoners who were put on their trial at the
last Assizes"; m = who were sentenced to imprisonment;
x = against whom the verdict 'guilty' was returned; y = who were
sentenced to hard labour.
The Premisses, translated into abstract form, are
"All x are m;
Some m are y".
Breaking up the first, we get the three
(1) "Some x are m;
(2) No x are m';
(3) Some m are y".
Representing these, in the order 2, 1, 3, on a Triliteral
Diagram, we get
·---------------·
|(O) | (O)|
| ·---|---· |
| | (I) | |
|---|(I)|---|---|
| | | | |
| ·---|---· |
| | |
·---------------·
Here we get no Conclusion at all.
You would very likely have guessed, if you had seen _only_ the
Premisses, that the Conclusion would be
"Some, against whom the verdict 'guilty' was returned,
were sentenced to hard labour".
But this Conclusion is not even _true_, with regard to the
Assizes I have here invented.