All; therefore some?

[Quantum Quack]

However, an argument of what I would call "reciprocal equivalence" could be stated as:
IF A=B
and B=A
THEN A=B

The difference is subtle but an argument is established and is sound. IMO.

It is certainly an argument, but it begs the question just as much as if you had omitted the "and B=A".
It is also not sound, although it is valid.
Soundness relates to whether the premises are true in reality.
You have to define what A and B are before you can judge soundness.
Validity is a matter of the form of the argument.

interesting take...
Perhaps you missed the title of that series:
"reciprocal equivalence"
A may equal B but only if B =A
seems sound to me... as the reality we are dealing with is the reciprocal equivalence of A and B.

 

[Baldeee]

interesting take...
Perhaps you missed the title of that series:
"reciprocal equivalence"
A may equal B but only if B =A
seems sound to me... as the reality we are dealing with is the reciprocal equivalence of A and B.

I didn’t miss it.
It is simply irrelevant as far as the argument you presented goes.

As said, if you omit the “and B=A” you end up with IF A=B THEN A=B.
Adding the “and B=A” is unnecessary for the conclusion you have reached.
The simpler version without the irrelevant second premise is a valid, if somewhat worthless question-begging, argument.

Can you think of any interpretation of your argument (I.e. of what A, B, and = mean) that requires the “and B=A” in order for the conclusion to be true?
E.g. let A be “Australia”, B be “Britain” and = mean “is”...
If Australia is Britain... (and Britain is Australia) then Australia is Britain.
Nope, this doesn’t need the part in parenthses.
Can you think of any interpretation where that part of the argument is reqiured?

Seriously, Quantum Quack, I suggest you get yourself even a basic understanding of logic, of validity, of soundness etc.
It will help not just you to formulate your thoughts more coherently, but as a result it will help everyone else trying to interpret what is otherwise a mess.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I didn’t miss it.
It is simply irrelevant as far as the argument you presented goes.

As said, if you omit the “and B=A” you end up with IF A=B THEN A=B.
Adding the “and B=A” is unnecessary for the conclusion you have reached.
The simpler version without the irrelevant second premise is a valid, if somewhat worthless question-begging, argument.

Can you think of any interpretation of your argument (I.e. of what A, B, and = mean) that requires the “and B=A” in order for the conclusion to be true?
E.g. let A be “Australia”, B be “Britain” and = mean “is”...
If Australia is Britain... (and Britain is Australia) then Australia is Britain.
Nope, this doesn’t need the part in parenthses.
Can you think of any interpretation where that part of the argument is reqiured?

Seriously, Quantum Quack, I suggest you get yourself even a basic understanding of logic, of validity, of soundness etc.
It will help not just you to formulate your thoughts more coherently, but as a result it will help everyone else trying to interpret what is otherwise a mess.

Try
A= some of B and B = some of A then A=B
Do keep your post #11 in mind...as you respond.

 

[Baldeee]

Try
A= some of B and B = some of A then A=B
Do keep your post #11 in mind...as you respond.

This is an entirely different argument.
This new one is a valid argument and does not beg the question.
You need both premises to be able to reach the conclusion (hence not question begging) and it is impossible for the premises to be true yet the conclusion false, hence valid.

But what of it?

 

[Quantum Quack]

This is an entirely different argument.
This new one is a valid argument and does not beg the question.
You need both premises to be able to reach the conclusion (hence not question begging) and it is impossible for the premises to be true yet the conclusion false, hence valid.

But what of it?

well you learn something every day.. .I guess.
It appears that vagaries such as the word "some" can mean anything we wish it to.
And that arguing equivalence is begging the question...
regardless I thank you for your effort...
out of interest, what are you thoughts on the following?
If A=B and B=A then A is B

 

[Baldeee]

well you learn something every day.. .I guess.
It appears that vagaries such as the word "some" can mean anything we wish it to.

This is why you need to educate yourself a bit more in the areas you wish to discuss.
It is disingenuous of you to say that it can mean “anything we wish it to”, as it clearly can’t.
It does, however, have reasonably well understood meanings in particular contexts.

And that arguing equivalence is begging the question...

It is the argument you posted that was begging the question.
If the conclusion restates a premise then it is begging the question.
It is as simple as that.

out of interest, what are you thoughts on the following?
If A=B and B=A then A is B

Now you are into the realm of semantics, as it would depend on what you mean by “=“ if not “is”.
If “=“ means “is” then you are back to begging the question.
But if “=“ means “is some of” then that would be different.

 

[Quantum Quack]

It is disingenuous of you to say that it can mean “anything we wish it to”, as it clearly can’t.

It is also disingenuous to use the word SOME when the word ALL is more concise.
It is also disingenuous to use a less precise form when precision is easily available.
To deliberately choose to use the word SOME when meaning ALL and then claim SOME to be sufficient is also disingenuous.

Why would some one use the word SOME if not to deliberately allow for vagary, ambiguity and the unknown?

Now you are into the realm of semantics, as it would depend on what you mean by “=“ if not “is”.
If “=“ means “is” then you are back to begging the question.
But if “=“ means “is some of” then that would be different.

I know you will state other wise but to me the word IS relates to Identity and the word Equal relates to equivalence.
or to put it another way;
IS is equal to oneself
Equal is equal to one self AND other than oneself.
Therefore
A=A,
A is A

A=B,
A is not B therefor A can be A or AB ( sum )

This is because equivalence is not sameness. (identity)

Of course A= A or A is A is begging the question...

 

[Baldeee]

It is also disingenuous to use the word SOME when the word ALL is more concise.

SOME and ALL have different meanings.
People use SOME when they mean an unspecified quantity within the range of "more than none" to "all".
People use ALL when they mean "all".
What is disingenuous about that?
Noone uses SOME when they mean "all".

It is also disingenuous to use a less precise form when precision is easily available.

SOME is as precise as it needs to be for the meaning it has.

To deliberately choose to use the word SOME when meaning ALL and then claim SOME to be sufficient is also disingenuous.

Noone uses the word SOME when they only mean ALL.
But in logic SOME does include ALL within the possible range covered by the term SOME.
It also includes HALF, and QUARTER.
Are you going to complain about that as well?

If people mean exactly and only ALL then they will use ALL and not SOME.
But when people use SOME correctly they are meaning an unspecified quantity within the range from "more than none" to "all".
It really should not be too difficult to understand.

Why would some one use the word SOME if not to deliberately allow for vagary, ambiguity and the unknown?

Maybe because in logic it is exactly what they mean.
SOME: an unspecified amount ranging from more than none to all.

I know you will state other wise but to me the word IS relates to Identity and the word Equal relates to equivalence.
or to put it another way;
IS is equal to oneself
Equal is equal to one self AND other than oneself.
Therefore
A=A, A is A
A=B, A is not B
This is because equivalence is not sameness.

You're going to have to unpack that, I'm afraid, because it's coming across as a garbled braindump.

 

[Quantum Quack]

OME and ALL have different meanings.
People use SOME when they mean an unspecified quantity within the range of "more than none" to "all".
People use ALL when they mean "all".
What is disingenuous about that?
Noone uses SOME when they mean "all".

So using the term SOME is redundant as it is already obvious.

Why use the term SOME? Unless it is to insert unnecessary vagueness and ambiguity into the argument?

It is a bit like the logic in "...and he killed him dead"

You're going to have to unpack that, I'm afraid, because it's coming across as a garbled braindump.

perhaps you just need to think on it a tad...have a cup of tea , put your feet up , relax....

 

[Quantum Quack]

So in response to the OP I could claim either, valid or invalid depending on what interpretation/definition I grant the word Some?
A=some % of B, and B= some % of A then A=B
The conclusion can only be valid if and only if the % =100 (ALL)

 

[Quantum Quack]

Ah, here is a very interesting piece of logic. I give the general form of the argument first, and then three straightforward applications of the general form.

All A's are/have F;
Therefore, some A is/has F.​

All angels have wings;
Therefore, some angel has wings.​

All politicians are liars;
Therefore, some politician is a liar.

All imaginary beings have serious existential problems;
Therefore, some imaginary being has serious existential problems.​

Thank you to say whether you think all these arguments are valid, or only some, or none.
Thank you to cast your vote before posting any comment.
EB

Inconclusive, validity or not can not be determined.
You needed an extra option in the poll vote IMO

 

[Speakpigeon]

Inconclusive, validity or not can not be determined.
You needed an extra option in the poll vote IMO

Vote "I don't know" because you really don't.
__________________

And thanks to Baldeee for being so patient! I should learn that lesson, but, no, I can't stand it!
EB

 

[Quantum Quack]

Vote "I don't know" because you really don't.
__________________

And thanks to Baldeee for being so patient! I should learn that lesson, but, no, I can't stand it!
EB

Nope.. can not be determined either way... insufficient info.
Can't vote... sorry..

 

[Baldeee]

So using the term SOME is redundant as it is already obvious.

If you think it obvious, and think SOME is redundant, then surely you consider it valid?

Why use the term SOME? Unless it is to insert unnecessary vagueness and ambiguity into the argument?

Intention is irrelevant to the matter of validity.
Validity is about form.

It is a bit like the logic in "...and he killed him dead"

That’s not an argument but a statement.
It is also tautological, which i guess is the statement equivalent to begging the question in an argument.

perhaps you just need to think on it a tad...have a cup of tea , put your feet up , relax....

Or, and here’s a novel idea, you could try and actually turn it into something that makes sense?

Inconclusive, validity or not can not be determined.
You needed an extra option in the poll vote IMO

Nope.. can not be determined either way... insufficient info.
Can't vote... sorry..

Yet not a moment ago you were claiming (see earlier in this post) that SOME was redundant, and the conclusion was obvious?
So it is obvious but not valid?
Is that your view?
On what basis, given that you’ve been informed of what ALL and SOME mean in such logic, do you consider it obvious but not valid?
Do you think it is possible that when the premise is taken as true that the conclusion can nonetheless be false?
Care to cite an example of when this might be the case?

 

[Quantum Quack]

If you think it obvious, and think SOME is redundant, then surely you consider it valid?
Intention is irrelevant to the matter of validity.
Validity is about form.
That’s not an argument but a statement.
It is also tautological, which i guess is the statement equivalent to begging the question in an argument.
Or, and here’s a novel idea, you could try and actually turn it into something that makes sense?

Yet not a moment ago you were claiming (see earlier in this post) that SOME was redundant, and the conclusion was obvious?
So it is obvious but not valid?
Is that your view?
On what basis, given that you’ve been informed of what ALL and SOME mean in such logic, do you consider it obvious but not valid?
Do you think it is possible that when the premise is taken as true that the conclusion can nonetheless be false?
Care to cite an example of when this might be the case?

What I am trying to suggest is that if it is valid it is invalid and if it is invalid it is valid... type problem..
One can not clearly state either unless you wish to consider the notion of half valid or half invalid...
By treating the word SOME as it appears to be treated the argument's veracity can not be determined.
I am looking at this issue not presuming any preexisting dogma.

SOME has many definitions and is a variable that in this case is not determined and on that basis the argument lacks enough information to be able to decide as to whether it is valid or not, yet still it remains an argument of sorts.


Compare:

A= some of B and B = some of A then A=B
with
A=some % of B, and B= some % of A then A=B

What percentage does SOME have to be to make the argument valid?
What percentage does SOME have to be to make the argument invalid?

and
Do you consider
IF A=B
and A=B
then A=B
an argument?
If so why?
An argument is more than just about form...

 

[Baldeee]

What I am trying to suggest is that if it is valid it is invalid and if it is invalid it is valid... type problem..

It isn’t a paradox.

One can not clearly state either unless you wish to consider the notion of half valid or half invalid...

Yes one can.
Here...
“The arguments are valid.”
Is that clear enough?

By treating the word SOME as it appears to be treated the argument's veracity can not be determined.

Veracity is not being asked about.
Validity is.
If you don’t know the difference then just vote “I don’t know” because it would be the most honest response for you.
By treating the word SOME as indicated, the arguments are valid.
Period.

I am looking at this issue not presuming any preexisting dogma.

You mean like definitions?
If that’s the case, anything goes, and you would have to vote that none of the arguments make sense.

SOME has many definitions and is a variable that in this case is not determined and on that basis the argument lacks enough information to be able to decide as to whether it is valid or not, yet still it remains an argument of sorts.

Sure, but you’ve been given definitions by the thread creator to be getting on with.
Let’s start with them, and try to answer the question using that definition.
If you want to then argue semantics, and how a different notion of SOME could lead to a different result, go for it.

Compare:

A= some of B and B = some of A then A=B
with
A=some % of B, and B= some % of A then A=B

You think these are different, other than the latter asking for the SOME to be expressed as a %?

What percentage does SOME have to be to make the argument valid?
What percentage does SOME have to be to make the argument invalid?

Valid is only when the some is 100%.
Invalid is all the rest.

and
Do you consider
IF A=B
and A=B
then A=B
an argument?

Yes.

If so why?

Because it has the form and function of an argument: in this case two premises followed by a conclusion, even if it is written as a conditional statement.

An argument is more than just about form...

One could say that it has function as well: concluding something based on the premises/assumptions.
In your example, one is concluding that A=B on the basis of the two identical premises, namely that A=B.
Since it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nonetheless false, it is a valid argument.
It also begs the question.

It is, however, a rather worthless argument precisely because it does beg the question.
But that worthlessness doesn’t mean that it is not an argument.

Wherever you have trigger words like “because” or “therefore”, you have an argument.
The “If... then...” is technically a conditional statement rather than an argument, but it can be used to express an argument... as in: if (premise 1) and (premise 2) then (conclusion).
This would then be taken as an alternative way of writing a standard deductive syllogism.

Of course, the IF THEN statement could also be used to simply describe a condition, or set of conditions, to be met before the next step, in which case it is not a deductive argument per se but rather a description of a logic-gate.

 

[Quantum Quack]

It isn’t a paradox.
Yes one can.
Here...
“The arguments are valid.”
Is that clear enough?
Veracity is not being asked about.
Validity is.
If you don’t know the difference then just vote “I don’t know” because it would be the most honest response for you.
By treating the word SOME as indicated, the arguments are valid.
Period.
You mean like definitions?
If that’s the case, anything goes, and you would have to vote that none of the arguments make sense.

Sure, but you’ve been given definitions by the thread creator to be getting on with.
Let’s start with them, and try to answer the question using that definition.
If you want to then argue semantics, and how a different notion of SOME could lead to a different result, go for it.
You think these are different, other than the latter asking for the SOME to be expressed as a %?
Valid is only when the some is 100%.
Invalid is all the rest.
Yes.
Because it has the form and function of an argument: in this case two premises followed by a conclusion, even if it is written as a conditional statement.
One could say that it has function as well: concluding something based on the premises/assumptions.
In your example, one is concluding that A=B on the basis of the two identical premises, namely that A=B.
Since it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nonetheless false, it is a valid argument.
It also begs the question.

It is, however, a rather worthless argument precisely because it does beg the question.
But that worthlessness doesn’t mean that it is not an argument.

Wherever you have trigger words like “because” or “therefore”, you have an argument.
The “If... then...” is technically a conditional statement rather than an argument, but it can be used to express an argument... as in: if (premise 1) and (premise 2) then (conclusion).
This would then be taken as an alternative way of writing a standard deductive syllogism.

Of course, the IF THEN statement could also be used to simply describe a condition, or set of conditions, to be met before the next step, in which case it is not a deductive argument per se but rather a description of a logic-gate.

My concern is that if the conclusion reached and intended is the premise, then no argument is offered.
However I will accept the mainstream view on this. According to research you are quite correct.

btw how did you vote?

and why?

 

[Baldeee]

My concern is that if the conclusion reached and intended is the premise, then no argument is offered.

It is better to say that it would be a worthless argument, or one that has no ability to convince.

However I will accept the mainstream view on this. According to research you are quite correct.

I know.

btw how did you vote?

I haven’t yet voted.
Thank you for the reminder.
I will vote that they are all valid.

and why?

Because they are.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Unfortunately, there are not enough votes to draw any conclusion.
I'm not sure why people don't vote. Surely, most people must have an opinion.
It can't possibly be difficult to decide whether all politicians are liars implies some politicians are liars. This seems to be a very simple question of semantics.
Or is it that people don't really understand simple everyday words like "all" and "some"?! This would certainly explain how difficult it is generally to have any kind of sensible conversation here, but you would expect people to have a working knowledge of the language they use every day.
Anyway, thanks to those who voted and commented.
EB