From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!news.cs.indiana.edu!arizona.edu!arizona!gudeman Tue Jan 28 12:17:08 EST 1992
Article 3104 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!news.cs.indiana.edu!arizona.edu!arizona!gudeman
>From: gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Intelligence Testing
Message-ID: <11829@optima.cs.arizona.edu>
Date: 24 Jan 92 06:53:09 GMT
Sender: news@cs.arizona.edu
Lines: 20

In article  <42196@dime.cs.umass.edu> Joseph O'Rourke writes:
]In article <11819@optima.cs.arizona.edu> gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
]>
]>That is a logical fallacy in that you are starting with a sentence of
]>the form "(not P) implies Q" and are drawing conclusions based on a
]>sentence of the form "(not Q) implies P".  As any freshman in a logic
]>class can tell you, you cannot make logical inferences about the
]>antecedent from the truth or falsehood of the consequent.
]
]I thought that ~P => Q is logically equivalent to ~Q => P, so that
]from ~P => Q and ~Q, P follows.

Sorry, I should be ashamed of myself, needing freshman logic lessons
at my age.  (I just wasn't very alert when I wrote that.  When I'm
really alert, I know I should be doing something more productive with
my time than arguing on the net...)
--
					David Gudeman
gudeman@cs.arizona.edu
noao!arizona!gudeman


