A community for students.
Here's the question you clicked on:
 0 viewing
anonymous
 4 years ago
1)People who download music eat pizza
2)You download music.
3)You eat pizza.
is this invalid,law of syllogism, or law of detachment?
anonymous
 4 years ago
1)People who download music eat pizza 2)You download music. 3)You eat pizza. is this invalid,law of syllogism, or law of detachment?

This Question is Closed

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0I say invalid, it's not true. That is opinionated.

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0This is invalid. It is the fallacy of the undistributed middle. "I am a person, but I am not all people"

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0I think it's a perfect example of the law of detachment. says if given a>b (in this case, download music > eat pizza) someone downloads music means they are "a" so they are also by definition "b"

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0I think its invalid. Its optional.

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0But you're not given any other information, right? it's an if/then statement... unless I'm mistaken?!

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0If you were to do a formal logic proof on this, it would sound more like "There exist those who when they eat pizza, they download music". To conclude the proof you would have to say "There exist at least some who when they eat pizza, download music." However, what their conclusion is saying is that "For ALL people, when they eat pizza, they download music", this is cleary false.

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0See: Existential instantiation/Universal instantiation for predicate logic.

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0where are you getting simultaneity from though? I am no expert in logic, but I don't think the last claim is the ultimate one this is making

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0Ooh, this seems like a civilized disagreement. *grabs popcorn

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0what's your thought on the matter, @julianassange?

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0Yes, It is simply invalid. No more further say, because once said opinionated, you can conclude that is not true as a fact, simply true as a false thought.

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0This is entertaining..

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0I mean, I get it. I know that the set {music downloaders} is a subset of {humans} and that there is a separate subset {pizza eaters} that intersects with music downloaders.

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0Right well ultimately there's two problems here because the events are disjoint. Eating pizza and downloading music. There's no implication. It's not implying that because I eat pizza, I download music. Second. You vs. People. You = "There exists" People = "For all" You cannot do this. You cannot say because there exists one where this is the case then it must be true for ALL.

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0Invalid is the answer for the win!
Ask your own question
Sign UpFind more explanations on OpenStudy
Your question is ready. Sign up for free to start getting answers.
spraguer
(Moderator)
5
→ View Detailed Profile
is replying to Can someone tell me what button the professor is hitting...
23
 Teamwork 19 Teammate
 Problem Solving 19 Hero
 Engagement 19 Mad Hatter
 You have blocked this person.
 ✔ You're a fan Checking fan status...
Thanks for being so helpful in mathematics. If you are getting quality help, make sure you spread the word about OpenStudy.