Talk:Catch-22 (logic)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] logic fix

I fixed the formal logic in the "original use" section. For C to "require" A and B is for C to logically entail A and B, not for A and B to entail C. Original writer was presumably confused because A and B, if they could happen, would happen earlier in time than C.

Also, I'll note that "if A then not B" and "if B then not A" are not both necessary in the definition; each entails the other. (They are contrapositives.) However, as including both feels right in the explication of the various examples of Catch-22, I haven't messed with it.

J. Goard 04:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that the statement "For C to 'require' A and B is for C to logically entail A and B, not for A and B to entail C." is relevant. I think that building a truth-table will clarify relations between propositions A, B, and C. I've tried it, but got stuck in analyzing the givens of the problem, which come, IMHO, from lack of rigor in choosing the atomic propositions A, B and C.

So, I want to share my own analysis of the problem, though I haven't read the book and judge only from what has been written up to date in this section.

Firstly, let's formulate simple propositions from the data and label them:
S.1) let "bombardier submits an insanity diagnosis from his squadron's flight surgeon" be I
S.2) let "bombardier is excused from combat flight duty" be E
S.3) let "bombardier is sane" be S (then "bombardier is insane" is ~S)
S.4) let "bombardier requests a permission not to fly combat missions" be R

Now we can elaborate on complex propositions:
C.1) I <-> E; that is "if I then E" and "if E then I"; here we make an assumption that there is no other way to be excused from flight duty, than I (even death is not enough)
C.2) I <-> ~S; an obvious one: if bombardier submits the diagnosis, then his surgeon considers him insane and vice versa
C.3) I <-> R; this proposition follows from common sense, not the data
C.4) (R & ~S) -> S

and summing it up:
let I be true
according to C.2) ~S is true
according to C.3) R is true
and, from C.4) we get S to be true and here we arrive at contradiction: both S and ~S cannot be true
if so, then one of our propositions is false or our assumption we made at start (i.e. I) is false

any suggestions? Antalas (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Catch 22 is that if S (you're sane, the default), then F (you have to fly).
If not S (you're not sane), then not F (you don't have to fly).
In fact, flying is so dangerous that if F, then not S (you have to be crazy to fly), but this psychiatric proof (not formal logic and not acceptable by USAF).
Officially, the only way to prove not S to be true is for D to be true (an evaluation from the Doctor, which must be true because doctors understand that only a crazy man would want to fly).
If not D (you're not evaluated), then S (by default you're assumed sane)
You can't get D without A (asking for it), but A automatically proves S (you're sane enough to not want to fly by USAF guidlines, so you're sane).
Therefore if A and D, then S, therefore F.
The only way for D and not S to be true (which is the only official way for not F) is if not A, but A is required for D so that'll never happen.
So:
S -> F
~S -> ~F
F -> ~S (known to be true, but not acceptable as proof by USAF)
D -> ~S (acceptable as proof by USAF)
~D -> S
A and D -> S
~A -> ~D
Therefore:
A -> F
~A -> F (and that's Catch 22)
It's supposed to absurdist, much like red tape often seems. A request not to fly isn't part of the scheme, but rather the fact that the USAF can't let insane people fly their planes. NJGW (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


I've got your point and must say that you made the analysis quite clear and rigorous, if not for one proposition i would have amended. It seems to me that A and D -> S would look better without D.
A -> S reflects that the fact of asking a doctor always yields sanity, no matter what the doctor says. It follows by the rule of Contraposition from implicitly stated proposition ~S -> ~A (every insane person is incapable of asking for doctor's approval). How do you find it? Antalas (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I put A and D -> S because that's what's in the book (the Dr.'s USAF guide states that an airman who asks for an eval is self-aware enough to consider the possibility of insanity, so he is sane enough by USAF standards), but I agree that it's not logically neccessary and covered by ~S -> ~A (which seems to make this more complete). If you feel like it adds to the article, feel free to use all that. NJGW (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 22

but why "22" ?

Because it is named after a book called "Catch-22"

Where did the author get the number 22 for the title of the book?
I heard somewhere because it'd been turned down by publishers 21 times.
Apparently it was meant to be Catch-18 but some other war book used that number so it was changed to 22

Is it important to include the Catch-18 bit in the article, especially in the first paragraph? Why? Brianrein 01:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Brianrein: no. I took it out. The answer to why 22 is answered at the Catch-22 page in depth in case any one still wants to know. NJGW (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] holy crap

this is the most horribly written article I've ever seen on this site. What's up Dr. Strangelove 05:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Examples - petrol cars, Automated highway system

The chicken and the egg links to Automated highway system describing exactly the thing that I thought happened with petrol cars and would happen with hydrogen cars. Yet people did buy petrol cars! Why? Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 15:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Catch 22 definition

The definition of Catch 22 given in the article of the same name is not entirely correct. In the book, there are in fact no less than a dozen scenarios which are described by the characters in the book as the result of "Catch 22," including the fact that Military Police can do anything they can't be stopped from doing, and the fact that Ex P.F.C. Wintergereen cannot run away from the army again, or else he will be executed (even though its his self appointed duty to do so).

However, the construction and symbolic logical demonstrations are well done.

[edit] Damned if you do

Is this necessary? A star trek rant? It's badly done, and not a very good example... even if we need this section at all, which I don't agree we do.

  • I'm all for removing it. Unless you're going to write down ALL the Catch-22's out there (Another rainy-day project) then it's not worth writing one and making it seem like thats the origin of them all. Oh, and it was also used in the Simpsons once (Bart the Genius). - Ghostalker

I disagree. The "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation is closely related to the Catch-22. They belong together on the same article. The Star Trek example is a good one of this situation: do something and die along with everyone you know, or don't do it and watch lots of innocent people die. Also, I suggest you look up rant in a dictionary. You obviously don't know what it means. -- Ritchy 15:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The article defines a Catch-22 not as any old no-win situation, but specifically in terms of a circular dependency (you need A to get B, but you need B to get A). I think this is the sense in which the expression is typically used, and it does not correspond to the Star Trek example. I kept the link to zugzwang, and deleted the example. 66.30.14.1 09:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Read the article again. It says the Catch-22 has evolved to mean a no-win situation with a circular dependancy, but originally it was a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't kind of deal. The original use of the term was exactly in that scenario: you have to be insane to be excused from flying a missing, but requesting to be excused from flying for insanity is proof that you're sane and thus forces you to fly. The damned-if-you-do... is very relevant in this article. -- Ritchy 17:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I think you have it backwards. It used to be a circular dependency, but now it has evolved to be a no-win situation. The original Catch-22 relied on the fact that you must be insane and ask to be excused, but to ask to be excused, you must be sane. Therefore, in order to be excused, you must have two mutually exclusive mindsets: being insane enough to request an excusal, while being insane enough to warrant that excusal. Damned-if you do, damned if you don't merely means that you must make a choice with no positive outcomes. In the original Catch-22, there was no choice as to the course of action.--Ballaban 16:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it's not a catch 22 situation. It may have something to do with it but if there are few examples, they should fit. Otherwise they will just create confusion. The same with the Soccer Example.
None of the examples in the Damned if you do... section - Star Trek, Les Miserables or the Italian football league - is a Catch-22. They are closer to a loose interpretation of Hobson's choice. (See the "modern usage" section of Hobson's choice.) Or Morton's fork. They are just a choice between two negative outcomes. The Star Trek scenario is a peculiarly bad example because it is not even internally consistent. (If the commander chooses to respond to the SOS signal he finds it is a decoy, but if he chooses to ignore it then it is genuine.) Personally, I don't think Wikipedia needs an entry on a self-explanatory expression such as "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" either as part of Catch-22 or as a separate entry. I will delete the whole section tomorrow unless anyone comes up with a good reason to keep it.Le poulet noir 11:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Catch-22 IS related to the DIYD-DIYD and used commonly in many songs, TV shows and among the general public. Regard1ess of Star Trek. Star Trek being used as an example is different than the actual meaning behind the two. DIYD-DIYD should be sighted in this page as an example or a relative statement in regards to a type of impasse. MajinPalgen 18:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Damned if you do..." is a synonym for "no-win situation", which is cited under the "see also" section. Le poulet noir 20:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original use

I know its not exactly neccesary but I think we should put the orginal usage just like Heller wrote it, it was much funnier.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk

[edit] Star Trek

Whats with Star Trek exam thing? it just looks silly and out of place. Clever spamming in my regard. --Duey Finster 14:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree - the Star Trek thing is totally out of place. I vote for it to be pulled.

[edit] Mathematical Definition?

The symbolic logic definition of "Catch-22" here seems faulty; The expression written does not mean that A would have to take place before B and vice versa to be true but really only that they occur at the same time, or both have a truth value at the same time. Therefore the formula is satisfiable. Any dissenters?--Zoso Jade 16:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. The definition as written is basically just "~A <-> ~B", and is true if A and B have the same truth value. This needs to be corrected. -- Ritchy 17:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
To describe this in logical terms would require the introduction of temporal logic or something to the point. There is not a lot of gain. Mariano 19:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Not necessarily. It could be possible to do it with "if then" statements. How about: (A <-> B) & (~B <-> A)? It's always false. And we can apply it to the example with A = request an exemption from combat flight duty and B = insane. You can request to be excused from combat flight duty if and only if you're insance, but you're fount not insane if and only if you're ask to be excused from flight duty. Seems to work, unless I made a mistake somewhere? -- Ritchy 19:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
(Please forgive my lack of notation) The definitive Catch-22 seems to be of the form: "IF A AND B THEN C; IF A THEN NOT B; IF B THEN NOT A;" In this example, if you're insane and you request to leave, then you can leave. If you're insane, then you can't request to leave. If you request to leave, then you're not insane. Therefore, you can never leave.

Implies doesn't mean requires and the article suggests it does. I don't know which way it should be, so I can't correct it myself. 83.29.246.76 19:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't it? A is human and alive -> A has a brain. Doesn't A is human and alive REQUIRE A to have a brain? A->B can be said "A is sufficent for B", or "B is necessary for A." 24.59.111.68 (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] logical error?

you say that no sane person would want to fly combat missions because of the danger involved: S = sane, F = wants to fly combat missions S → ~F (and therefore, F → ~S) This doesn't imply ~F → S. Wanting to fly is sufficient to prove insanity, but wanting not to fly does not entail you are sane. The example given also conflates sanity and fitness to fly: "...he is in fact sane and therefore is fit to fly." Why would sanity be a sufficient condition for flight fitness?

[edit] A solution?

I did imagine one possible solution. If the only way to obtain an insanity certification is to present oneself to the doctor as insane, there is indeed no way out. But, what if another person (a confederate or concerned friend) drags you in and asks the doctor to certify you, while you're protesting the action and proclaiming that you can't wait to get out and fly missions?

Heller would probably have said that the doctor would be obliged to trust the patient's judgement over his friend's. In the book, catch-22 is not just a single rule to catch out shirkers, but a principle that ensures the triumph of bureaucracy over the individual (and, ultimately, common sense).Le poulet noir 17:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, they don't ground anyone unless they personally ask. Otherwise, they'd ground everyone. Also, the only "concerned friend" would probably also be flying or in the Army Air Force, which would make them crazy as well, and we all know you can't trust a crazy person. Artiste-extraordinaire 13:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
How about: "Beg to fly a dangerous mission and classify yourself as sane. Only an insane person would want to fly, and a sane person would not want to fly. Also because you presume yourself sane, but want to fly, you have to be insane because you are self contradicting." There problem solved. (--207.233.77.190 21:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Catch-22 is not the paradox!

Well, the thing you call Catch-22 is not the Catch-22 from the book.

The book tells that Catch-22 is every stupid law that only works if you justifie it with Catch-22.

It is four examples of this in the book.


1: The officers who censures the privates letters must sign their name, because of Catch-22.

2: The famous paradox.

3: The soilders who throw out Natlys hookers little sister and her "friends" said that they do it because of Catch-22.

4: Yossarian himself says that Catch-22 does not exist. He thinks it is a law that no one can burn och hate because it does not exist.Sjalvastefan


I changed some lines in this article to be more correct to the original use.

I still think this article is stupid, and I can't change it because of Catch 22... Sjalvastefan

[edit] How is it pronounced?

Is the word pronounced "catch twenty-two" or "catch two two"? The only place I recall having heard it spoken is in the song The Shortest Straw by Metallica, and there James pronounces it "catch two two". But he could be wrong.

What is the correct pronunciation? Does anyone know? SpectrumDT 17:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I've always heard "Catch Twenty Two" used, and it's not uncommon for songwriters to take liberties. Static Universe 18:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

In the 1970s I found a cassette copy of Heller reading excerpts from the novel, and he said "Catch Twenty Two", as well as "MInderBInder", and "Clevv-inger." Mark Sublette (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remove References tag?

Seems that the source of the term is adequately identified, what else more is needed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Efalk (talk • contribs) 17:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

No, you need to cite sources. It's just sloppy to go around claiming things without saying how you arrived at your conclusions or where you got your info. --Kraftlos 07:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


Catch 22 is NOT the same as the chicken and egg problem. The two are different. The chicken and egg problem is something like - You need work experience to get a job, but you have to have a job to get work experience. A Catch 22 situation would be something like - You want to get a job at the employment agency which happens to be situated inside an office complex where only employees are allowed. If you show up at the counter, you are disqualified since your mere presence there implies you already have a job, and cannot qualify.

[edit] Logic paragraph

People keep inverting the paragraph with the logic proposition. Maybe that section should be clarified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nehalem (talk • contribs) 19:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removing Star Trek example

It's out of place (disruptive) and plenty of discussion above calls for removal. I'm taking it out. NJGW (talk) 04:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Antreten

The proposed English translation for the Prussian phrase "die Flucht nach vorne antreten" seems to ignore "antreten," which has a martial connotation, as in lines/orders/ranks and files. Google doesn't translate "antreten" at this time, so the editor may have left it out inadvertently. To try to make sense of the phrase, I submit http://www.babylon.com/definition/Antreten/ and http://www.dict.cc/?s=antreten.

The impression (it's only that) I get is that this phrase might be better translated as "Escape to the front line." Perhaps someone who is fluent in German could advise on this, and whether the irony I find in this translation is intended in the original German. Pulsadinura (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prototypical situation

I removed this from the Logic section because (1) discussion of the article belongs on the talk page, and (2) I disagree.

Here is the text I removed: "Since this obviously did not happen (if it did, Yossarian would not have been allowed on combat flight duty to begin with), then it follows that Yossarian would not be considered sane for wanting to leave. Thus this example contradicts itself. Please make a better one!"

I disagree. I don't think it's a good idea to replace the prototypical example of a catch-22 (the Yossarian scenario used in the book Catch-22) with a different example. The author of the book, Joseph Heller, coined the term. If user 67.53.37.218 thinks that Heller's example is not a catch-22, that user must be confusing catch-22 with some other logical principle. JD Lisa (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The example is erroneous.
It implies that there is no solution, when there are several solutions.
According to the assumptions in the example, it would be impossible for Yossarian to enter to begin with, and thus there would be no need for him to leave.
Also, he could just have somebody else suggest a mental evaluation for him, and have the person not say Yossarian requested it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.37.218 (talk) 05:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'll tell Joseph Heller next time I see him and let him know that his book could have been a lot shorter. But seriously, Catch 22 is a book, and that's were we get the phrase from. You can't argue that the book was written wrong. That's like saying, "The chicken in the chicken/egg problem had other options. It could have abstained, or used protection, or dated an eagle."
Yossarian was written as a bombardier, and decided he wanted out once he was already there (as is normally the case with many sane young men who are seeing war for the first time); and tricking the process and then saying "gotcha" doesn't seem to be allowed by the guidelines setup by Heller (nor in real life by the military). If you read the book though, you'll see how he does solve the problem.
Remember, Heller was in a very similar bomber squad in the same area in WWII. He's writing about his experiences and perceptions. This article is about the phrase which has entered into popular language, where it's meaning comes from and how it is used. You should also know that the book "is frequently cited as one of the great literary works of the Twentieth century," so arguing your point might be a tough sell. NJGW (talk) 06:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you!--Mbz1 (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)