User talk:Jamesrmeyer

February 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Drinker paradox, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.

• Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
• ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Drinker paradox was changed by Jamesrmeyer (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.952976 on 2011-02-01T22:02:13+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Drinker Paradox

In regards to the Drinker Paradox,

In the case of "If P, then Q", the statement is only false if P is true and Q is false. For example "If it is raining, then I carry an umbrella." If it is raining and I am carrying an umbrella, the statement is true. If it is raining and I am not carrying an umbrella, the statement is false. Confusion comes with what happens when it isn't raining at all. If it is not raining, and I am carrying an umbrella, is the statement true? What if it is not and I don't carry an umbrella? The original statement only makes claims as to what happens when it is raining. The statement can't be false if it isn't raining, because the statement only describes what happens if it is raining. Although it seems weird, in these cases the statement defaults to true.

As for drinkers in a pub, there is a person in the pub such that "if that person is drinking, then everybody is drinking." That statement is true any time it is applied to somebody who isn't drinking because it only makes claims about what happens if that person is drinking. If Person A begins drinking, but Person B and Person C still are not, then the statement is no longer true about Person A. However, it is still true about Person B and Person C.

I'm reverting the article to the previous version. If you still disagree, discuss with me on my talk page, or on the article's talk page. The article has been in its current form since its inception, and it is in poor taste to completely change it without any consent or input from others. If it turns out that you are correct and I am mistaken, then we can change after a wider consensus has been reached.

See the truth table here: Material_conditional#Definition

Chris3145 (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The article on the Drinker Paradox is in poor shape, at best. I completely agree that it lacks suitable citations, and I've added tags for such at the beginning of the article. I would like to clarify that I reverted one of your edits in which you changed the content of the article from describing it as a valid paradox to an invalid one. I didn't mean to be an ass, but any time an article is drastically edited to say the exact opposite of what it said before (even if the new edit is correct), it's likely to be reverted until a more general consensus is reached. Your second edit, the one that mentioned the lack of sources, was actually reverted by a bot.

I do have a basic understanding of some logic operations (as has been required in some of my computer science, philosophy, and advanced mathematics courses), but I will admit I've never learned all of the symbols involved. My understanding of your counter-argument was limited (my problem, not yours), because I haven't learned the symbols that are commonly used in formal logic.

I do, however, know enough about logic to know that the paradox is correct. I know, for instance, that the statement "If P, then Q" is only false when P is true and Q is false. The drinker paradox states that there is a person in the pub such that, if he is drinking, then everybody drinks. Following formal logic rules, this statement is true when applied to anybody who is not drinking. If person A is drinking while persons B, C, and D are not, the statement is not true for person A. However, the paradox doesn't require it to be true for everyone. For B, C, and D it is true (because P is false for those three drinkers). I don't believe the paradox is intended to be true for any particular person at all times (e.g., if B starts drinking, the statement is no longer true for him). The way the paradox is written, it simply means that at any given instant, there is a person that fits those requirements. It doesn't have to be the same person all the time.

The paradox illustrates a way in which formal logic doesn't agree with ordinary language. Much like the formal logic "or" is different than the everyday "or", the formal logic "If P, then Q" differs from the way it would likely be understood in everyday language. The article on the material conditional has a section about how it doesn't agree with ordinary language. You may also find Paradoxes of material implication to be a useful read.

The article is in a poor state, and deletion may be its ultimate prospect. Wherever it ends up going, I would like it to reach that point as a consensus between editors rather than one person ruling over that article. No hostility was meant when I reverted your edit. Chris3145 (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I have stopped contributing to this, because I don't want to waste my time trying to argue against persons who do not understand the basics of the subject that they are posting on, yet insist that they are competent to do so, and are prepared to spend time doing so. There is no point in arguing with persons who cannot understand the simple fact that in classical logic there are no changes of state (that is that every proposition in that logic has a fixed truth value of true or false) and that therefore it cannot apply to situations such as the case of a person drinking. Chris3145, you say:

I do, however, know enough about logic to know that the paradox is correct.

Clearly, that is incorrect, since classical logic demands that a person is always drinking or always not drinking - which is not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.251.12 (talk) 12:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is changing state in this paradox. "If he is drinking..." is automatically true when applied to a non-drinker. See the material conditional, which clearly explains all of this. It has the truth table to show that "If P, then Q" is true when P is false, and it describes the ways in which this statement in logic conflicts with its use in regular language. The paradox is valid. You are incorrect. I'm done with this. Chris3145 (talk) 08:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Why use vague undefined statements such as "nobody is changing state in this paradox", which is open to various interpretations? Obviously the 'paradox' is simply a statement of language, and people don't exist in statements so they can't change state in statements. It would be better to make unambiguous statements to convey what you actually intend. I think most people would agree that the 'paradox' is intended to refer to a situation which involves people.

The simple facts are - either

a) the situation that the statement refers to is a real world situation, where the state of people drinking does change state, or

b) the situation that the statement does not refer to is a real world situation, and refers to a hypothetical situation where the state of people drinking never changes state.

Situation a) is not described by the given classical logic statement, whereas situation b) is described by the given classical logic statement.

The problems with natural language arise from the insistence of certain people that the natural language statement "If p then q" is exactly equivalent to the classical logic statement "not(p and not q)". If one wants to insist that that is the case, one should provide a concrete proof of that assertion. And since natural language is not subject to a absolute and precise definition, a valid proof of that assertion does not appear to be possible. I don't know why some people seem to think that, because they have a smattering of knowledge of classical logic, they have thereby attained an overriding expert opinion on natural language.--Jamesrmeyer (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)