# Thread: Joe jumped off a cliff and died.

1. Where does the deduction come in?

“Joe jumped off a cliff and died” is equivalent to, “Joe jumped off a cliff, and Joe died.” It doesn’t translate into “Joe jumped off a cliff, and because of that, Joe died.” The former is the conveyance of two facts (with only suggestion of dependence) while the latter stipulates a connection.

2. Originally Posted by fast
Where does the deduction come in?
"Classical propositional logic".

Originally Posted by fast
“Joe jumped off a cliff and died” is equivalent to, “Joe jumped off a cliff, and Joe died.” It doesn’t translate into “Joe jumped off a cliff, and because of that, Joe died.” The former is the conveyance of two facts (with only suggestion of dependence) while the latter stipulates a connection.

If you understand both English and human deductive logic, it should be a piece of cake.
EB

3. Originally Posted by Speakpigeon

If you understand both English and human deductive logic, it should be a piece of cake.
EB
The most nonsensical party if the thread is your posts, and in particular your notion that you hold a monopoly on the English language, but whatever.

4. Originally Posted by Jokodo
Originally Posted by Speakpigeon

If you understand both English and human deductive logic, it should be a piece of cake.
EB
The most nonsensical party if the thread is your posts, and in particular your notion that you hold a monopoly on the English language, but whatever.
I don't see how I could possibly reply to a nonsensical comment except to say it is nonsensical.
EB

5. Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
How is the idea expressed in classical propositional logic that one event caused another one event?

For example:

Joe jumped off a cliff and died.

If you understand both English and human deductive logic, it should be a piece of cake.
EB
You say to read the question carefully. When I look, I see the question, and the question reads, “How is the idea expressed in classical propositional logic that one event caused another one event?” I understand the question, but because of the qualifications, I can’t rightly say that I know the answer.

I do suspect, however, that you (yourself) misarticulate the distinction I bring up.

P1. Joe jumped off a cliff.
P2. Joe landed in the water.
P3. Joe swam to the shore.
P4. Joe got into a vehicle
P5. Joe drove towards town
P6. Joe lost control of his vehicle
P7. Joe wrecked his vehicle
P8. Joe suffered injuries
P9. Joe died.

Each individual statement is true. P1 is true, P2 is true, ... P9 is true.

Statements of combined true facts are also true: P1 and P2 is true, P1 and P3 is true, P1 and P4 is true, ... P2 and P3 is true, ... etc etc, and of course, P1 and P9 is true; in fact, it’s the actual example you give. The problem is, it’s not because he jumped off the cliff that he died, so with all this careful reading you insist upon, I wonder why you don’t give an example that actually reflects your question—regardless of what the answer actually is.

When (In English), you use the conjunction “and,” that doesn’t IMPLY but in some contexts merely suggest a casusal relationship. In ordinary conversation, people talk in shorthand. It’s very prevalent—happens all the time, and yes you probably do mean for the example to be an example of what you want it to be an example of, but then, you go into this carefully read spewl, and what else am I to do but take into account what you explicitly say, and what you do not explicitly say is that “joe jumped off a cliff resulting in his death.”

As to your answer, I’m still not rightly sure, but i’d imagine you should be explicit and not leave it ambiguous. Maybe there’s a special symbol for notating a causal effect.

6. Joe is the familiar of Joseph, the stepfather of our Lord Jesus of Nazareth. The stepson saved him, and then yawned at the ease of saving "Joe" and solving the resulting riddle. What good is raising a savior if you can't fall off a cliff now & then?

7. Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
Originally Posted by Jokodo
Originally Posted by Speakpigeon

If you understand both English and human deductive logic, it should be a piece of cake.
EB
The most nonsensical party if the thread is your posts, and in particular your notion that you hold a monopoly on the English language, but whatever.
I don't see how I could possibly reply to a nonsensical comment except to say it is nonsensical.
EB
Well, I read the question carefully and concluded that it's based on a false premise if what the English sentence "Joe jumped off a cliff and died" means.

p2 question answered, statement not a proposition'
p3 eb ignores response
c eb is illogical.

Conclusion follows from premises.

9. How do we answer the question?

What does it even mean to express an idea using propositional logic? Would the structure be different if a causal connection was intentionally avoided versus intentionally stipulated?

The young girl touched the hot stove and burned her hand. Just like his example, the paranoia that I am possibly being misled is alive and well. While it seems a no-brainer that the speaker fully intends to suggest that one event caused the other, the out loud explicit connection is omitted leaving the smidgen of ponder in my mind.

Oh goodness, I told her never to touch a hot stove
Oh, but that’s not how she burned her hand.
But, you said ...
Yes, I did, but I didn’t explicitly say and thus convey what you think I did.

Right now, I’m still inclined to think that if you want to use propositional logic and feel the need to convey that one event caused another, then just SAY SO explicitly when writing out a proposition.

10. Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
How is the idea expressed in classical propositional logic that one event caused another one event?

For example:

Joe jumped off a cliff and died.

If you understand both English and human deductive logic, it should be a piece of cake.
EB
This is not the expression of an idea. This is the statement of two facts, which may or may not be connected.
In logic, this would be written:

A and B

If you wish to assign causality, you would write it as

A -> B

...which in English would be "if Joe jumped off a cliff, then joe is dead".

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•