# POLL 4 on a very simple argument especially designed for Sarkus

## Is the argument valid?

• ### I don't know

• Total voters
6
• Poll closed .
Haven't you anything better to do in life?
You think my responses to you are anything more than petting someone's yappy little dog? You really do need to rein in your sense of self-worth.

I think I already replied to that.
"May be p" just means it is possible that p, or, we don't know that not p.
So, if we don't know that not p, it is possible that p, and so it is true that may be p, and therefore "may be p" is true.
Or else, if we do know that not p, it is not possible that p, and therefore it is false that may be p, and thus "may be p" is false.
Thus, "may be p" is either true or false.
As we should all know.
Suppose I have a box with some logic gates in it, I know there are AND gates and OR gates. So if I take one of them out of the box, it may be an OR gate, I don't know that it's not an OR gate, but if it isn't it must be an AND gate.

But how do I find out about "may be an OR gate"? I mean, it's true that it may be, or maybe it isn't . . .

Your post says the same thing. It's like saying "My car may have some gas in the tank, and I know this is true". What you don't know is how far you'll get if the "may be true" thing, isn't.
In short, your system of logic is pretty trivial; it doesn't seem to have much closure in it.

arfa brane said:
Suppose B is the set {T,F}.
Suppose it's not.
EB
Ok, suppose B may be a set, or B may not be a set. Where are we then? Nowhere.

But how do I find out about "may be an OR gate"? I mean, it's true that it may be, or maybe it isn't . . .
Your post says the same thing. It's like saying "My car may have some gas in the tank, and I know this is true". What you don't know is how far you'll get if the "may be true" thing, isn't. In short, your system of logic is pretty trivial; it doesn't seem to have much closure in it.
"It is true that maybe God exists" is not the same at all as "It is true that God exist".
You seem unable to accept one without feeling you have to accept the other.
EB

Ok, suppose B may be a set, or B may not be a set. Where are we then? Nowhere.
You are.
EB

You think my responses to you are anything more than petting someone's yappy little dog? You really do need to rein in your sense of self-worth.
Your posting here is entirely the result of by your inability to properly understand such a simple thing as "x may be y".
EB

"It is true that maybe God exists" is not the same at all as "It is true that God exist".
You seem unable to accept one without feeling you have to accept the other.
No it's not my problem. You posting crap like that is a problem though, but only for you.
It may be true that you don't have a problem, which is different from it is true that you have a problem.

The problem you have is that you talk a lot of bullshit and expect everyone to figure out if maybe it really is bullshit. But you insisting that I or Sarkus, or anyone who's had a go at maybe understanding your bullshit can't understand the phrase "may be true".

That has to be complete bullshit. Grow up you silly little boy.

"Your argument here yields false conclusions from true premises, whenever x and y are known to be in mutually exclusive parts of B. That settles the "validity" question."
Wrong assumption.
There is no assumption.That's a deduction, from this:
x may be some part of B;
y is some part of B;
Therefore, x may be y.
- - -
It's doing a couple of different, and mutually exclusive, things - depending on what is needed for a given substitution of the variables.
"x may be B1 or B2" implies "x may be B1 but not B2";
"x may be B1 or B2" implies "x may be B2 but not B1";
"x may be B1 or B2" implies "x may be either B1 or B2 but not both";
"x may be B1 or B2" implies "x may be B1, B2, or both".

For God sake, I you can read English at all, we are explicitly concerned with the possibility that they may be, not might be. What's wrong with you?!

Tell me why that distinction is important to your argument.

I'm not aware of any problem translating 'might be' with ◇. For example, see pp.9ff here:

Or the discussion of modal logic in the IEP, which begins (highlighting by me), "Modal notions go beyond the merely true or false by embedding what we say or think in a larger conceptual space referring to what might be or might have been, should be or should have been, or can still come to be. Modal expressions occur in a remarkably wide range across natural languages, from necessity, possibility and contingency to expressions of time, action, change, causality, information, knowledge, belief, obligation, permission, and far beyond. Accordingly, contemporary modal logic is the general study of representation for such notions and of reasoning with them."

https://www.iep.utm.edu/modal-lo/

Here's something that points out some of the complexities in translating natural language into logical symbolism in predicate logic. (Modal logic can be expected to be even worse.) My point here is that natural language is often logically ambiguous which is one of the motivations for introducing logical symbolism in the first place.

https://cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/191/S09/transtip-pnllogic.html

Last edited:
I'm not aware of any problem translating 'might be' with ◇. For example, see pp.9ff here:
Or the discussion of modal logic in the IEP, which begins (highlighting by me), "Modal notions go beyond the merely true or false by embedding what we say or think in a larger conceptual space referring to what might be or might have been, should be or should have been, or can still come to be. Modal expressions occur in a remarkably wide range across natural languages, from necessity, possibility and contingency to expressions of time, action, change, causality, information, knowledge, belief, obligation, permission, and far beyond. Accordingly, contemporary modal logic is the general study of representation for such notions and of reasoning with them."
https://www.iep.utm.edu/modal-lo/
Here's something that points out some of the complexities in translating natural language into logical symbolism in predicate logic. (Modal logic can be expected to be even worse.) My point here is that natural language is often logically ambiguous which is one of the motivations for introducing logical symbolism in the first place.
https://cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/191/S09/transtip-pnllogic.html
Sure, people are free to do whatever and they do. But my argument uses "may", not "might". And the set of all cases that may be true includes the set of all cases that might be true. Not the reverse. "It may be that p" means we don't know that not p, while "It might be that p" means we don't know that not p but the probability that p is low.
EB

"It may be that p" means we don't know that not p, while "It might be that p" means we don't know that not p but the probability that p is low.
Yet BOTH express possibility. Your argument is with regard possibility. It is irrelevant whether that possibility is remote or highly likely. BOTH express possibility. Thus using either "may" or "might" is entirely acceptable as an expression of that possibility. Your issue here is thus nothing more than your desire to argue.

Your posting here is entirely the result of by your inability to properly understand such a simple thing as "x may be y".
I understand it. I understand your argument. I find it invalid for reasons stated, reasons that you have yet to provide anything sensible with which to rebut them. In fact your postings here and in other threads are becoming increasingly devoid of anything other than desperation to support your view, but to continue arguing nonetheless.
Maybe the argument is valid, but unless you are able to actually show us where the arguments for why it is invalid are erroneous, which you haven't yet done, I'll go with those who have actually supported their position. Oh, is this where you further your Galileo gambit?

I understand it. I understand your argument. I find it invalid for reasons stated, reasons that you have yet to provide anything sensible with which to rebut them. In fact your postings here and in other threads are becoming increasingly devoid of anything other than desperation to support your view, but to continue arguing nonetheless.
Maybe the argument is valid, but unless you are able to actually show us where the arguments for why it is invalid are erroneous, which you haven't yet done, I'll go with those who have actually supported their position. Oh, is this where you further your Galileo gambit?
If in doubt, best not to feed them, Sarkus.

Yet BOTH express possibility. Your argument is with regard possibility. It is irrelevant whether that possibility is remote or highly likely. BOTH express possibility. Thus using either "may" or "might" is entirely acceptable as an expression of that possibility. Your issue here is thus nothing more than your desire to argue.
I've explained why they differ.
EB

I understand it. I understand your argument. I find it invalid for reasons stated, reasons that you have yet to provide anything sensible with which to rebut them. In fact your postings here and in other threads are becoming increasingly devoid of anything other than desperation to support your view, but to continue arguing nonetheless. Maybe the argument is valid, but unless you are able to actually show us where the arguments for why it is invalid are erroneous, which you haven't yet done, I'll go with those who have actually supported their position. Oh, is this where you further your Galileo gambit?
I've explained why the proofs of invalidity proposed by some of you were not effective here.
We disagree, move on.
Unless, maybe, you think there is something like an absolute proof?
EB

Maybe the argument is valid, but unless you are able to actually show us where the arguments for why it is invalid are erroneous
I don't care for proving. I asked whether the argument was valid. Thanks to those who replied.
EB

I've explained why they differ.
And that reason is irrelevant with regard to their usage in your argument your purposes of the argument. Both express possibility, your intention and purpose of argument is with regard possibility. Any issue you have beyond that is your ego, your arrogance, and your desire to pick fights for the purpose of fighting.
I've explained why the proofs of invalidity proposed by some of you were not effective here.
And your explanations have been shown to be unfounded.
We disagree, move on.
Yes, we disagree. But some put forward justification, you put forward... nothing but confidence and desperation.
Unless, maybe, you think there is something like an absolute proof?
For a given definition of validity, yes, there is. You have provided neither a definition of validity nor a proof, or even substantial argument, in support of your position.
I don't care for proving. I asked whether the argument was valid. Thanks to those who replied.
Yet you claim everyone who doesn't agree with you as being wrong. You cant believe how many consider it invalid. Yet in support of your position, across four, five, or six threads, you offer... nothing.
You try to place yourself on a pedestal, but fail to realise that you're in a dolls house. So here's an idea: step out of the dolls house, put aside your ego, and try to have an actual discussion with people. Or am I aspiring to too much of you?

I am surprised that a definitive answer is being asked for, valid or invalid when in fact the only answer is "maybe" either.
Surely when an argument is as ambiguous and uncertain as this one is there can only be a vague, uncertain response to it.

I'm not aware of any problem translating 'might be' with ◇.
Neither do I. But Speakpigeon also wants to introduce a spurious distinction between the words "may" and "might", according to his own preference. As has already been pointed out, his argument only deals with possibility, not probability, and in that context the distinction, even if he wants to make it, is irrelevant.

I think I've sorted this one:

A statement that can be true, might be true. Then it may be that a statement which might be true, actually is true.
It's possible . . .

On the other hand a statement that can be false, might actually be true at the same time, if it can be!
Logic, huh? what a crock.