Friday, November 12, 2004
RE: My earlier logic post.
I really messed up. I had the forms correct. But, for some dumb reason I didn't actually dig out my old logic textbook, so I used the wrong name for the forms.
The forms were valid. But "affirming the antecedent" is valid. The invalid form I discussed is called "affirming the consequent."
A shout out to the half-dozen people who let me know I had gotten the name wrong.
I will edit the original post, but this post will stand as acknowledgement that I did make a small mistake initially.
I love the net because of this - a zillion fact checkers!!!! And, unlike CBS, I acknowledge my mistakes as soon as they are brought to my attention.
I should likely allow comments on this site for even more immediate feedback. I'll look into that. (Winston has actually suggested that I allow comments. He's a smart guy, so expect them soon - but maybe not too soon. It's getting near finals).
I really messed up. I had the forms correct. But, for some dumb reason I didn't actually dig out my old logic textbook, so I used the wrong name for the forms.
The forms were valid. But "affirming the antecedent" is valid. The invalid form I discussed is called "affirming the consequent."
A shout out to the half-dozen people who let me know I had gotten the name wrong.
I will edit the original post, but this post will stand as acknowledgement that I did make a small mistake initially.
I love the net because of this - a zillion fact checkers!!!! And, unlike CBS, I acknowledge my mistakes as soon as they are brought to my attention.
I should likely allow comments on this site for even more immediate feedback. I'll look into that. (Winston has actually suggested that I allow comments. He's a smart guy, so expect them soon - but maybe not too soon. It's getting near finals).
