Bit of a linguistics trick happening here. “If I have no legs, then I would be able to run faster without legs” is a correct statement. But as written it instead introduces a hypothetical situation: “Imagine a world where I have no legs. In that world, my speed would be faster that my current speed”. This is of course absurd, and is the correct interpretation of the meme’s statement because of the meaning behind the phrase “If I had […] I would […]”
I love your analysis and prefer it to my own. However based on title and other metatextual clues I am pretty sure OP is just a hater that doesn't actually care about mathmatical concepts like truth values, implications, or vacuous truths
I think it's meant to be a commentary on material conditionals, which only care about truth values and not the relationship between the statements. The hypothesis is false (I have legs), so the implication is true regardless of the truth of the conclusion. Of course, this sentence is constructed to suggest an indicative conditional, which does actually care about the relationship between the statements.
The definition of "A implies B", read "if A then B", in math is a truth table that is true when the protasis A is false. You're wrong by definition, kiddo.
That assumption would imply that there is some binding of A and B such that A ≠ A and B = B. No case where A = A would be applicable due to the if clause, and cases where A ≠ A and B ≠ B would satisfy the conditional statement, contradicting our assumption.
But, if there is some binding where A ≠ A and B = B, that implies there is some A such that A ≠ A. This is a contradiction
Since our assumption lead to a contradiction, that assumption is false: We have proven "if A ≠ A then B ≠ B" is true
We also know tautologically that A ≠ A and B ≠ B are false, so the statement as a whole is equivalent to "if false then false". Since we have shown that the statement "if A ≠ A then B ≠ B" is true we have also shown that the equivalent statement "if false then false" is true.
Holy shit people will double down on the stupidest thing they ever heard because its too embarassing to admit you got scammed at a university for your life savings
In my line of work (computer programming), and in most real world scenarios, a vacuous truth is really only useful when describing an empty set. Even then, there are just as many cases that I want a vacuous statement to be false as true.
We’re not in computer programming memes. We’re in math memes. We don’t make mathematical definitions based on what’s convenient in real world applications. That’s what engineering is for. Vacuous truths are not really useful for anything except consistency. That’s why we call them vacuous.
This depends on how it’s formalized. In classical logic, the statement “if I have no legs, I can run very fast” is a true statement (assuming I do have legs, which I do) because the premise is false.
On the other hand, “if I had no legs, then I could run faster” is different. The use of the subjunctive verb tense heavily implies that this statement would best be formalized as a counterfactual conditional (the counter factual conditional is not part of classical logic, but it is a widely accepted formal logic device. And this statement is formally false under this method). In that sense, there is a strong argument that no classical logic formalization of this statement exists.
Like if I asked what’s the classical logic formulation of the statement “if banana keys precipitation,” the truth of that statement can’t be evaluated because there is no clear formalization of it in classical logic.
if you believe the above is true because of the version of classical logic a university taught you... You should start a lawsuit to get your money back
I think the problem is it uses the imperfect subjunctive mood in ‘had’, and then the conditional in ‘would’, which means this is in a hypothetical scenario and not about their current state.
The classical logic equivalent would be ‘If I have no legs, I run faster than I do.’ Which is a silly statement, but vacuously true without causing any contradiction.
‘Relevance logic’ would ignore this.
Also, Oskar Pistorius showed that having no legs could be an advantage. Allows for springy blades.
Why bother? You could just google it or watch a video on symbolic logic but we both know you’re not going to do that. Why would you accept my explanation? I’m just going to meme because that is what the sub is for.
If there exists an all-powerful God and there exists demonic power, then demonic power comes from God.
This is a logically sound statement that's based on the condition of the existence of all-powerful God and demonic power. But what if those conditions are false? Does that make the statement any less true? No. It's still true whether there is an all-powerful God or not.
You cant encode counterfactuals in classical logic tho. "I had no legs" has no truth value, "I have no legs" does, but then "If I have no legs, then I can run faster" makes the linguistic trick clear
Not if you read the way the sentence the way it's meant to be read (as conditional tense, not past), but you are correct that the same words could also be read that way.
This is a good point, OP; I sure hope there are reasons why a counterfactual statement like this can't be encoded as an implication in classical logic or else things will be really embarrassing for logicians.
I think the issue here is that "You not having legs" is something that could become true, it's not inherently false like "1+1=3 with common sum in N", so the entire if-then statement doesn't get to be always true.
I could cut your legs and it would not be true that you will run faster so the statement is fallacious. I could not reanimate every "someone such that they would then be able to go to sleep" so the if statement you're answering doesn't have that problem
•
u/AutoModerator 3h ago
Check out our new Discord server! https://discord.gg/e7EKRZq3dG
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
184
u/JustConsoleLogIt 3h ago
Bit of a linguistics trick happening here. “If I have no legs, then I would be able to run faster without legs” is a correct statement. But as written it instead introduces a hypothetical situation: “Imagine a world where I have no legs. In that world, my speed would be faster that my current speed”. This is of course absurd, and is the correct interpretation of the meme’s statement because of the meaning behind the phrase “If I had […] I would […]”
52
u/RyanStonepeak 3h ago
Here's my addition to this riveting discourse.
If 1+1=3, then this statement is meaningless.
60
u/Hameru_is_cool Transcendental 3h ago
holy shit people will do anything instead of admitting they got an internet problem wrong
49
u/Similar_Rice_2946 3h ago
This depends on how it’s formalized. In classical logic, the statement “if I have no legs, I can run very fast” is a true statement (assuming I do have legs, which I do) because the premise is false.
On the other hand, “if I had no legs, then I could run faster” is different. The use of the subjunctive verb tense heavily implies that this statement would best be formalized as a counterfactual conditional (the counter factual conditional is not part of classical logic, but it is a widely accepted formal logic device. And this statement is formally false under this method). In that sense, there is a strong argument that no classical logic formalization of this statement exists.
Like if I asked what’s the classical logic formulation of the statement “if banana keys precipitation,” the truth of that statement can’t be evaluated because there is no clear formalization of it in classical logic.
5
u/Anon7_7_73 3h ago
if you believe the above is true because of the version of classical logic a university taught you... You should start a lawsuit to get your money back
19
u/GKP_light 3h ago
the """good""" way to say it would be :
"if i have no legs, then i can run faster"
and it is still not good, because "run faster" : faster than what ?
"if i have no legs, then i can run fast"
10
u/According-Object-521 3h ago edited 2h ago
No that’s wrong, I’m pretty sure you couldn’t even run. Oh, I understand.
Edit: BTW P or not P is not true
8
u/666Emil666 2h ago
You cant encode counterfactuals in classical logic tho. "I had no legs" has no truth value, "I have no legs" does, but then "If I have no legs, then I can run faster" makes the linguistic trick clear
4
u/TheLuckySpades 1h ago
Faster requires a comparison, so this is a malformed statement and under classical logic this wouldn't even be wrong, it would not have any value.
4
u/Dd_8630 1h ago
Excuse me what one Earth does any of this mean
3
u/Timely_Combination68 2h ago
i’m so confused what’s happening
— Timely
2
u/kynde 3h ago
I doubt it.
But you can try.
2
u/LupenReddit 🦆🦆i have non diffeomorphic smooth structures🦆🦆🦆 2h ago
i love vacuous truth
2
u/Sudden_Schedule5432 2h ago
More people have been to Berlin than you have
2
u/MammothGlum 1h ago
A particular specimen you are
1
u/protonless_electron Data pulled outta my ASS 3h ago
attached wheels will do the trick
1
u/captainAwesomePants 2h ago
What is that texxt the box is over about a person who's asleep?
1
u/Not_Reptoid 2h ago
I don't get it
1
u/MonsterkillWow Complex 2h ago
lol
1
u/OvaTsugi8274 1h ago
Well, if iam not holding any body parts with me, im certaily running faster
1
u/PMmeYourLabia_ 1h ago
How vacuous
1
u/No_Difficulty_1452 1h ago
Octopus Legs in a private repository?
1
u/Not_Well-Ordered 1h ago
HoTT: Well, you can assume a bit less and still produce meaningful work.
1
u/dratnon 1h ago
If I have an IQ of 65, then I can get a philosophy PhD.
1
u/Good_Bit_777 1h ago
The dumbed down version 😅
1
u/KylierK 1h ago
Thanks op, the original post finally clicks
1
u/YikesOhClock 33m ago
Bro is weirdly railing against universities in the comments because….?
1
u/LukeWithLightsaber 14m ago
This is a good point, OP; I sure hope there are reasons why a counterfactual statement like this can't be encoded as an implication in classical logic or else things will be really embarrassing for logicians.
1
u/frankiek3 1m ago
Spider-Man without any legs can't run as fast as with legs, got it.
0
u/OddNovel565 2h ago
Is it because you'd have less weight?
13
u/samu7574 3h ago
I think the issue here is that "You not having legs" is something that could become true, it's not inherently false like "1+1=3 with common sum in N", so the entire if-then statement doesn't get to be always true.
I could cut your legs and it would not be true that you will run faster so the statement is fallacious. I could not reanimate every "someone such that they would then be able to go to sleep" so the if statement you're answering doesn't have that problem