Quantcast

Got Homework?

Connect with other students for help. It's a free community.

  • across
    MIT Grad Student
    Online now
  • laura*
    Helped 1,000 students
    Online now
  • Hero
    College Math Guru
    Online now

Here's the question you clicked on:

55 members online
  • 0 replying
  • 0 viewing

helpme123456

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?

  • one year ago
  • one year ago

  • This Question is Closed
  1. julianassange
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    I say invalid, it's not true. That is opinionated.

    • one year ago
  2. helpme123456
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    Thats what i thought

    • one year ago
  3. qpHalcy0n
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    This is invalid. It is the fallacy of the undistributed middle. "I am a person, but I am not all people"

    • one year ago
  4. sabimaru
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    I 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"

    • one year ago
  5. helpme123456
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    I think its invalid. Its optional.

    • one year ago
  6. sabimaru
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    But you're not given any other information, right? it's an if/then statement... unless I'm mistaken?!

    • one year ago
  7. qpHalcy0n
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    If 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.

    • one year ago
  8. helpme123456
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    ^

    • one year ago
  9. qpHalcy0n
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    See: Existential instantiation/Universal instantiation for predicate logic.

    • one year ago
  10. sabimaru
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    where 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

    • one year ago
  11. julianassange
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    Ooh, this seems like a civilized disagreement. *grabs popcorn

    • one year ago
  12. sabimaru
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    hahahaha

    • one year ago
  13. sabimaru
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    what's your thought on the matter, @julianassange?

    • one year ago
  14. julianassange
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    Yes, 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.

    • one year ago
  15. helpme123456
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    This is entertaining..

    • one year ago
  16. sabimaru
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    I 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.

    • one year ago
  17. qpHalcy0n
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    Right 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.

    • one year ago
  18. sabimaru
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    cool

    • one year ago
  19. julianassange
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    Invalid is the answer for the win!

    • one year ago
    • Attachments:

See more questions >>>

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
  • 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.

This is the testimonial you wrote.
You haven't written a testimonial for Owlfred.