Talk:Contraposition
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. | ||||||||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
Previous talk page notes may be found at Talk:Contraposition (traditional logic).
[edit] Applications
The example given is rather confusing and may give the casual reader the impression that proving by the contrapositive is the same as proving by contradiction. Donald Hosek 03:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The example with houses and buildings is not very obvious to me, since I think not every reader sees the same set/subset relation on them. I know people who claim that buildings and houses are mutually exclusive. Anton
- It is claimed that the following is the case: "The contrapositive is 'If an object is not a building, then it is not a house'..." However, There are quite clearly people who live in boxes, which are not buildings but certainly are houses (unless the definition of house is such that House(x) is biconditional with Building(x) rather than simply conditional). I would suggest finding a simpler relationship that is provably true in all cases on virtue of the definition of it's parts, AND remains a conditional statement. For example, "If an object does not have color, then it is not red," would be an excellent and undisprovable example. edit: i was in class, and have edited this and signed it with my home laptop.--24.107.9.33 17:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Because it was not disputed, I have edited it to reflect the clearer original statement "All Red things are Colored." --24.107.9.33 (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC) aka MilquetoastCJW
A conditional statement doesn't always makes sense, if it doesn't then it would be false but still a converse statement. 72.18.39.72 (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- that's quite a completely different discussion on the nature of meaning and connotation versus rationality and truth-value. For the purposes of an example, Red v. Color will do much better than a conditional which is false to begin with. --97.91.175.154 (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC) aka MilquetoastCJW
[edit] contraposition
give me money —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.100.12 (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- No. Now go cry.--97.91.175.154 (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
