Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: andre@shappski.demon.co.uk (Andre Shapps)
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!peernews.demon.co.uk!shappski.demon.co.uk!andre
Subject: Re: The logic of "and" and "but"
References: <600434857wnr@shappski.demon.co.uk> <3il8on$msp@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
Organization: The Soundfile
Reply-To: andre@shappski.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Newswin Alpha 0.7
Lines:  18
X-Posting-Host: shappski.demon.co.uk
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 01:02:34 +0000
Message-ID: <714396447wnr@shappski.demon.co.uk>
Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk

In article: <3il8on$msp@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>  
aeulenbe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Alex Eulenberg) writes:
 
> This figure is two-dimensional, and has three sides, but none of its 
> angles is a right angle. Therefore, it is not a right triangle.
> 
> In other words, A but B means that the asserted conjunction A&B is to be 
> compared to the ideal, which is A&~B.

I'll sleep on that one and check out you web page. This seems the closest to a 
logical explanation that I've read. Can you prove this sort of thing by 
inference? If so how? Or is just a question of never having found an example 
for which it doesn't fit?

-- 
Andre Shapps

