So, SB, if a sufficient condition is one which, if true, implies that a result is true, and a necessary condition is one which must be true if the result is true, then how does the truth of a sufficient condition not imply the truth of a necessary condition?
None but SB can speak for SB, but your explication in 44 isn't what I took you to be saying in 40 or SB to be disagreeing with in 41. Rather I took "sufficient implies necessary, and that's no sin" to mean that if x is sufficient then it is necessary. Not suggesting that was your meaning, but it is a fairly standard reading of what you said.
I thought you were arguing that "p is sufficient for q" implies "p is necessary for q", which is plainly false.
What I take you to be saying now is that, if p is sufficient for q, and p holds, then all conditions r necessary for p also hold, in particular q. Of course that's right, but it's not, for me, the first-leaping-to-mind interpretation of "sufficient implies necessary".
Since inability to properly understand the sufficient/necessary distinction is a problem a lot of people on the LSATS, and that inability isn't present here, I officially propose that we start "The Unfogged LSAT Tutoring and Cock Joking School."
48, but why suppose there exist such conditions for which p is necessary? It should be possibile that there exists only a sufficient condition, resulting inq, and that is all? If so, SIN is wrong.
Is the remark about the family-resemblance-lacking kid connected to the one about noticing the alt text, or does it refer to the debate over implication?
You mean you don't often argue settled points of logic for fun? You don't know what you're missing. Have you heard about this disjunction thing they have? Its elimination rule is wicked phat.
It was elsewhere in the "I Suspect Not" thread. Anyway, touché, and it's only in the spirit of total pettiness that I'm going to call you on "doesn't picked up."
I suggest ending it with the word "euphemism". As in the great PopCanon song "Ironica": "When I said you smelled like monkey jism, I meant it as a euphemism".
True dat. But is that not the best rhyme for "disjunctive syllogism" ever? Give it up.
(Did I ever mention that the only English phrase that has all the same meanings as "aufheben" is "give up" used as in "give up the funk"? That one's for you, Ogged.)
Not really. I've heard that before, but I don't find the evidence cited too convincing; Casanovas were a prominent gang at the time, IIRC from the liner notes to the Sugar Hill Records story.
100: The thing is that the phrase occurs more than once on the page, so Google only shows one occurrence, which happened not to be the classic one.
But Weiner, you didn't actually rhyme "disjunctive syllogism".
In the spirit of 106, a Texan of my acquaintance maintained that the only proper translation for a particular Greek word was "fixin'", as in, I'm fixin' to do such-and-such. But how can "give up" mean "annihilate"?
Perhaps I meant that it had all the meanings of aufheben I could think of at the time. Perhaps I was going to cite "give up the ghost" as well. Perhaps I was talking smack. Perhaps my confusion was backward-caused by Wolfson's little-bitchiness in dissing my rhyme for "disjunctive syllogism." It's a mystery.
With Unfogged relaunching as a bona fide magazine, should we expect your staff to expand?
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 4:06 PM
Every semester, SB.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 4:11 PM
Note how the announcement is cleverly timed to coincide with an extended series on Heidegger designed to give the new magazine intellectual heft.
Posted by NickS | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 4:13 PM
Well then, I'd like to be on it. I know you have a limited number of positions, but I'm flexible.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 4:14 PM
You've just missed the add/drop period, but I think we can let you audit.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 4:17 PM
That's terrific, ogged. Thanks for being so receptive. I'll do you proud, I promise.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 4:25 PM
Who are you calling receptive?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 4:26 PM
Accommodating?
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 4:27 PM
Indeed.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 4:29 PM
I was expecting to start at the bottom and work my way up, you see.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 4:38 PM
Ogged. You know I'm well rounded. Please consider my application. I think you'd find me satisfying in any position.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 6:48 PM
FYI: I don't think you actually qualify as new media unless you have a WWWA ticker running.
Posted by SomeCall,MeTim | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 7:06 PM
should we expect your staff to expand?
I think it's finally time to hire Kaus.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 7:17 PM
Every time someone reads Kaus, an angel dies. I'm not sure which way this weighs for ogged.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 7:28 PM
Yes Ben, I remember girl27's line.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 8:28 PM
Good for you. So did I.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 8:37 PM
Can I be the pinup girl?
Posted by profgrrrrl | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 9:12 PM
I don't know PG, we're Big Media now. Whatcha got?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 9:14 PM
What? Last week's sunburn wasn't enough for you?
Posted by profgrrrrl | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 9:15 PM
Oh, for a blog it was more than enough. Big Media.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 9:17 PM
Ogged is probably thinking page three girl–type stuff.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 9:18 PM
Where has girl27 gone? Maybe there's a big story in that.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 9:19 PM
Even if there isn't, you're big media now. Make one up.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 9:19 PM
I'm willing to leave things to PG's imagination.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 9:20 PM
Good question, eb. 27? You out there?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 9:21 PM
Ah, but I'm not going to post Big Media type stuff to my blog, so you'll have to invite me to be a pinup here to see what I'll do!
Posted by profgrrrrl | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 9:23 PM
PG, will you please be the pinup for the Unfogged Web Magazine?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 9:24 PM
I really don't see what the drawbacks to taking her up on that invitation could be, ogged.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 9:25 PM
Damn, too slow.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 9:26 PM
Why thank you for the offer. It would be an honor.
(sneaks off to figure out what to do next ...)
Posted by profgrrrrl | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 9:27 PM
Show us your Da-Sein.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 06-30-05 11:52 PM
I didn't know you spoke Frussian, Michael.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 6:15 AM
Ogged, if pg backs out, I'm available. How much would you pay me to tattoo Unfogged.com across my forehead?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 6:48 AM
Standpipe, I'll show you my Prime Mover if you'll show me yours.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 8:56 AM
I would like one of you honkies to write a rap involving the phrase "uncaused cause". You can include the variant "uncaused 'cause" if you like.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 9:03 AM
You can include the variant "uncaused 'cause" if you like.
Do the spare inverted commas affect scansion?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 9:04 AM
It makes it a shortening of "uncaused, because".
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 9:05 AM
I'll show you my Prime Mover if you'll show me yours.
Admit it, you want to put your necessary in my sufficient.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 9:09 AM
They have evil-alien-mecha sheep?
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 12:48 PM
Admit it, you want to put your necessary in my sufficient.
Mmm-hmm, 'cause sufficient implies necessary, and that's no sin.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 12:54 PM
Sufficient does no such thing. To confession with you.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07- 1-05 1:07 PM
Hey, new alt text.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 12:25 PM
Yeah, I noticed that last night.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 12:29 PM
So, SB, if a sufficient condition is one which, if true, implies that a result is true, and a necessary condition is one which must be true if the result is true, then how does the truth of a sufficient condition not imply the truth of a necessary condition?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 12:33 PM
None but SB can speak for SB, but your explication in 44 isn't what I took you to be saying in 40 or SB to be disagreeing with in 41. Rather I took "sufficient implies necessary, and that's no sin" to mean that if x is sufficient then it is necessary. Not suggesting that was your meaning, but it is a fairly standard reading of what you said.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 12:41 PM
Oh. Well, that's not what I meant at all.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 12:41 PM
I thought you were arguing that "p is sufficient for q" implies "p is necessary for q", which is plainly false.
What I take you to be saying now is that, if p is sufficient for q, and p holds, then all conditions r necessary for p also hold, in particular q. Of course that's right, but it's not, for me, the first-leaping-to-mind interpretation of "sufficient implies necessary".
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 12:45 PM
Sufficient [things] [if true] implies necessary [things]. Why can't you read what I mean, instead of what I write?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 12:48 PM
Since inability to properly understand the sufficient/necessary distinction is a problem a lot of people on the LSATS, and that inability isn't present here, I officially propose that we start "The Unfogged LSAT Tutoring and Cock Joking School."
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 12:51 PM
Plus writing something obviously correct would have obviated the point, which was to write something that could be abbreviated "SIN".
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 12:54 PM
48, but why suppose there exist such conditions for which p is necessary? It should be possibile that there exists only a sufficient condition, resulting inq, and that is all? If so, SIN is wrong.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 1:19 PM
Example?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 1:21 PM
For all p, p is necessary for p.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 1:22 PM
It's true—ever tried to p when you don't have any p? You just stand there looking foolish.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 1:23 PM
Therefore, for all p, there exists a q such that p is necessary for q.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 1:24 PM
curses!
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 1:27 PM
Michael—does that answer your question?
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 1:27 PM
Since p->p seems pretty plausible, I should hope so.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 1:29 PM
This must be what it's like when your kid grows up to look nothing like you.
Glad someone finally noticed the alt text.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 1:42 PM
Actually the alt text says "Unfogged.com" or something equally uninteresting. The title text, now, that's worth paying mind.
Theory: Standpipe connected via a text browser.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 1:44 PM
Are you sure it's yours, Ogged?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 1:45 PM
Not at all.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 1:49 PM
What kid?
Also, by "alt" I meant whatever causes text to appear next to a hovering mouse pointer. Hooray for learning something new.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 1:52 PM
kid=blog
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 2:01 PM
So the blog's grown up to look nothing like you? Good to know.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 2:03 PM
Good to know? What are you planning?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 2:05 PM
I'm sorry, but what in the world are you people talking about? Where can I see this alt text?
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 2:06 PM
Hover your mouse over the main "unfogged" graphic on the front page.
Ogged, I was planning to track you down using the clues you've left as to your location, with a printout of the blog to help me recognize you.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 2:08 PM
Hover your mouse over the picture at the top of the main page.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 2:08 PM
You could probably get a grant for that, Ben.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 2:10 PM
Is the remark about the family-resemblance-lacking kid connected to the one about noticing the alt text, or does it refer to the debate over implication?
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 2:10 PM
Tracking you down, or typing faster than you?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 2:11 PM
implication
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 2:11 PM
Ah ok. I was confused because I expected my arrow to turn into a little pointing hand, but now I see it.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 2:11 PM
Tracking me down.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 2:12 PM
"I expected my arrow to turn into a little pointing hand"
Maybe you just don't swing that way?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 2:13 PM
You mean you don't often argue settled points of logic for fun? You don't know what you're missing. Have you heard about this disjunction thing they have? Its elimination rule is wicked phat.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 2:16 PM
Don't start with me on disjunction elimination, SB. Relevance logic in your face!
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 2:22 PM
A wise man once said, "Don't start none, won't be none."
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 2:23 PM
More than once.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 2:28 PM
Yo mamma necessarily so fat in all possible worlds.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 2:28 PM
That ... ?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 2:32 PM
Yo mamma so fat, she is a possible world.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 2:33 PM
You momma so fat, she's not.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 2:34 PM
Yo mama so shaggy, she ain't that shaggy.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 2:36 PM
Yo mamma so fat, she's closed under union.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 2:36 PM
FL's a Meinongian!
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 2:36 PM
Hey ... don't steal my jokes, Joe.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 2:39 PM
Don't whine Ben. Remember:
So when the sucker MCs try to chump my style
I let em know that I'm versatile
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 2:41 PM
No harm intended. I figured everyone knew it was yours.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 2:44 PM
I wasn't even alive when "Rapper's Delight" was released, man.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 2:44 PM
What's your point, dawg?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 2:45 PM
Potholes in your lawn, Ben? Think of it as part of the Pierre Menard project.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 2:47 PM
I think I know what comes next: pwned!!
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 2:48 PM
Why must you be such a little bitch, Weiner?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 2:49 PM
A hurtful, lying bitch.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 2:58 PM
Canonically "lying, hurtful" (oddly that one doesn't picked up the "hung like a horse" instance).
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 3:05 PM
Check this proposition,
Gonna break your resistance:
Ex falso quodlibet?
Don't need it.
I'm freakin' your derivation—
My logic's paraconsistent.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 3:06 PM
It was elsewhere in the "I Suspect Not" thread. Anyway, touché, and it's only in the spirit of total pettiness that I'm going to call you on "doesn't picked up."
Yeah, I'm loud and pround.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 3:08 PM
Google's index of the site is incomplete, which is why I keep the MT search.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 3:10 PM
I'm like Vlad,
You're suffering impalement.
Your argument's sad,
you need to read Entailment.
Like the Dog,
who used disjunctive syllogism,
Your weblog,
will drink its funky fill of... shit, can't think of a way to end this.
(The reference to the Dog makes sense if you've read Entailment, trust me.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 3:13 PM
Corrections:
line 2: "your shit's sad"
line 7: "You're in a fog"
line 8: "you'll drink your funky..."
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 3:15 PM
Your line count is off.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 3:17 PM
I suggest ending it with the word "euphemism". As in the great PopCanon song "Ironica": "When I said you smelled like monkey jism, I meant it as a euphemism".
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 3:18 PM
Ironically, wikipedia says that the Big Bank Hank, putative author of the lines in 89, might himself have been a plagiarist.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 3:18 PM
True dat. But is that not the best rhyme for "disjunctive syllogism" ever? Give it up.
(Did I ever mention that the only English phrase that has all the same meanings as "aufheben" is "give up" used as in "give up the funk"? That one's for you, Ogged.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 3:18 PM
Strictly speaking, that "ironically" should occur elsewhere in the sentence.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 3:20 PM
I like the "aufheben" thing, Matt. I'll run it by my Hegel people.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 3:22 PM
Not really. I've heard that before, but I don't find the evidence cited too convincing; Casanovas were a prominent gang at the time, IIRC from the liner notes to the Sugar Hill Records story.
100: The thing is that the phrase occurs more than once on the page, so Google only shows one occurrence, which happened not to be the classic one.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 3:22 PM
"Not really" to 107.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 3:22 PM
But Weiner, you didn't actually rhyme "disjunctive syllogism".
In the spirit of 106, a Texan of my acquaintance maintained that the only proper translation for a particular Greek word was "fixin'", as in, I'm fixin' to do such-and-such. But how can "give up" mean "annihilate"?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 3:23 PM
It's not ironic that wikipedia should say that, is it? I agree with 107.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 3:24 PM
Hopefully, Weiner will go easy on me.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 3:24 PM
113 -- nice.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 3:25 PM
"Hopefully"? I don't play that shit. Utterance modifiers rool!
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 3:28 PM
how can "give up" mean "annihilate"?
I was trying to figure this out for myself, but I see now that that was stupid. Weiner?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 3:30 PM
Perhaps I meant that it had all the meanings of aufheben I could think of at the time. Perhaps I was going to cite "give up the ghost" as well. Perhaps I was talking smack. Perhaps my confusion was backward-caused by Wolfson's little-bitchiness in dissing my rhyme for "disjunctive syllogism." It's a mystery.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 3:35 PM
I didn't diss your rhyme, I merely pointed out that you had failed to create a rhyme on the phrase in question.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 3:38 PM
I can't tell whether you're mind too fining or not.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 3:40 PM
The title of this article is another candidate for whitest (but, by no means unstoic) sentence ever.
Posted by Joe O | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 3:49 PM
There's also a Homer Simpson quote:
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 3:56 PM
I've gotta get out of this rut and back into the groove!
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 4:40 PM
Fewer cock jokes at the Unfogged Reading Group.
The End of the Blog is seriously nigh. This blog, anyway.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 5:13 PM
I'll probably change that, but I'm tired, and it came to mind...
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07- 7-05 5:14 PM