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.