>>13789590hm, ofcouse I havent checked the links yet (but I will), however this really hit me:
>it isn't immediately clear why you are concerned with your mindset rather than, say, focusing on whether or not there is any petition you'd like to bring to /mg/ concerning your workyou see
so ill actually bring some material, although i think it is ridiculous that I cant figure this out:
Question:
Given the following sentence: "if it is sunny, i am going by bike"
Then I got the following sentences:
1. "if it is not sunny, i am not going by bike"
2. "if I am not taking the bike, it is not sunny"
3. "if I am taking the bike, it is sunny"
Which of the sentences (1-3) follow from the original sentence.
My thoughts:
The original is clearly an implication.
A = "its sunny"
B = "i am going by bike"
then: A => B
1. could be expressed as: !A => !B, which according to the truth table is true and it also makes sense from the standpoint of common sense as it is just the other side of the A statement.
2. could be expressed as !B => !A.
here i am not sure if it is fair to look at the false-false case in the truthtable, as i have to turn around the implication.
Common sense tells me its not true, as i could also not be taking the bike because of another reason. Is this fair to consider?
3. could be expressed as B => A. Because I am unsure of 2 i am also not sure here and could see both sides.
How do I have to think about these implications?
