Joe jumped off a cliff and died.

[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.

Please read the question carefully. Please don't go into the usual wild and nonsensical answers most people here usually do.

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

 

[Fentoine Lum]

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.

Please read the question carefully. Please don't go into the usual wild and nonsensical answers most people here usually do.

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

The brits? And logic?

 

[Speakpigeon]

The brits? And logic?

Yeah, fair point.

They're trying to both leave and not leave. Both with and without a deal. To have an election and not to have an election. To be independent both of the E.U. and of the U.S. Illogical.

Maybe Lewis Carroll, perhaps?

But, yeah, Bertrand Russell, definitely not.

And Schrödinger was German, right? You know, "dead and alive"! LOL.

But Isn't Trump some kind of American? Or is he in fact German? Isn't he president and not president at the same time?

Hey, wait, this is a derail!
EB

 

[Fentoine Lum]

The brits? And logic?

Yeah, fair point.

They're trying to both leave and not leave. Both with and without a deal. To have an election and not to have an election. To be independent both of the E.U. and of the U.S. Illogical.

Maybe Lewis Carroll, perhaps?

But, yeah, Bertrand Russell, definitely not.

And Schrödinger was German, right? You know, "dead and alive"! LOL.

But Isn't Trump some kind of American? Or is he in fact German? Isn't he president and not president at the same time?

Hey, wait, this is a derail!
EB

Don is so fucked up I rather think that, as an american, we must admit that at this juncture, Don is the quintessential american. President and not president at the same time coupled with endless illusion and spectacle seems quite in line with things such as:

• A nation that prattles on endlessly about peace but is constantly engaged in multiple endless wars of aggression, occupations, destabilizations and interventions for profit and control of natural resources of others

• A nation that waxes philosophically about freedom while running THE most expansive detainment/incarceration apparatus ever known to human kind, complete with convict labor leasing (which is "legal" enslavement) to corporations; all having been turned into private corporate revenue generational "opportunities"


• A nation that proclaims itself to be a free market society as it actually functions thusly;
• Privatized gains versus socialized losses for the Wall Street bankster class
• Internalized profits versus externalized risk and expense for the "job creator" class
• Socialism for the aristocracy versus laissez-faire capitalism for the masses

• A nation that looks back to reclaim some imaginary mythical past as it hides from dealing with objective reality in the present

• A nation that espouses its young to be the future yet subjugates them as debt peons in exchange for education, uncouples a generation from upward social mobility and leaves to them a damaged planet while allowing contaminated public water to become endemic within the US

Yes I would say Don is some kind of american indeed.

 

[blastula]

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.

Please read the question carefully. Please don't go into the usual wild and nonsensical answers most people here usually do.

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

Delightful invitation!

 

[steve_bank]

'Joe jumped off a cliff and died ' is a declaration that is either true ot false.

p1 Joe jumped off a cliff and died
p2 Joe was wearing a parachute
c1 parachute malfunctioned
c2 Joe had a heart attack
c3 ...

'Joe jumped off a cliff and died' and 'If Joe jumped off a 2000 foot cliff falling strait down hitting the ground, then he died' are two different things.

p1 Joe jumped from a cliff
c Joe died.

There is not enough information in the syllogism to draw a conclusion. c does not necessarily follow from p.

 

[steve_bank]

Well all right! I got the last word.

 

[fromderinside]

So, given the above if we substitute The Donald for Joe?

What then? I don't know about GI Joe, but I do know about The Donald. His supporters won't permit him to die.

 

[Jokodo]

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.

Please read the question carefully. Please don't go into the usual wild and nonsensical answers most people here usually do.

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

The sentence doesn't express that idea. It simply says they are both things that happened. If Joe famously jumped a particular cliff in a wing suit and tragically died in a car accident later the same year, it's perfectly fine to say "Joe, who jumped a cliff and died in 2017" to remind your audience who it is you're talking about. In a hypothetical future where medicine has progressed to the point where resurrecting people is a standard procedure, even "Joe jumped a cliff and died, but I don't remember which he did first" is perfectly acceptable.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Please read the question carefully. Please don't go into the usual wild and nonsensical answers most people here usually do.

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

 

[fast]

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.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Where does the deduction come in?

"Classical propositional logic".

“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.

Please read the question carefully. Please don't go into the usual wild and nonsensical answers most people here usually do.

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

 

[Jokodo]

Please read the question carefully. Please don't go into the usual wild and nonsensical answers most people here usually do.

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.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Please read the question carefully. Please don't go into the usual wild and nonsensical answers most people here usually do.

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

 

[fast]

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.

Please read the question carefully. Please don't go into the usual wild and nonsensical answers most people here usually do.

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.

 

[ideologyhunter]

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?

 

[Jokodo]

Please read the question carefully. Please don't go into the usual wild and nonsensical answers most people here usually do.

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.

 

[steve_bank]

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

Conclusion follows from premises.

 

[fast]

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.

 

[Gun Nut]

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.

Please read the question carefully. Please don't go into the usual wild and nonsensical answers most people here usually do.

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".