I have to disagree. Where does it say they are statements??? I am
considering them Binary Random Variables over some unknown distribution in
which case if B is a discreet Random Variable, even without knowing it's
mass, you know a little bit more about A once you know that B is True.
At 10:44 PM 5/3/01, John Hall wrote:
>Fork removed.
>
>No, it doesn't.
>
>In this useage, A and B are statmetents that are either true or false.
>If A => B then you know that if A is true B must be true. You can draw no
>information about B if A is false.
>
>Similarly, if A => B and you know that B is true you have no idea whether A
>is true or false. No information. None.
>Zero. Zilch. Nada.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tony Berkman [mailto:tberkman@rcn.com]
>Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 9:23 PM
>To: Jeff Bone; John Hall
>Cc: FoRK
>Subject: Re: How do you teach fundamental logic to someone that doesn't
>grok it?
>
>
>A=>B,B gives you some extra information about A if B is discrete it would
>seem....
>
>At 09:12 PM 5/3/01, Jeff Bone wrote:
>
>
> >John Hall wrote:
> >
> > > It is the first one that shocks me. A => B, A, means B
> > >
> > > As to the second, you can conclude nothing. Specifically, you have no
> > > information about A.
> > > A => B, B, no extra conclusions can be drawn.
> >
> >Well, I guess that depends on whether you count "A OR B" and other trivial
> >logical statements derived from the givens as "conclusions." You certainly
> >can't infer or deduce anything about the truth value of A from the
> >second...
> >
> >jb
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 06 2001 - 08:04:38 PDT