Antecedent (logic) Puns

I can learn this by wrote, however I'd prefer to know exactly why. It doesn't seem immediately obvious to me.

Thanks and merry christmas!!

First, my logic textbook tells me that when using the "⊃" (which it refers to as a horseshoe) to diagram conditional statements the antecedent should be placed on the left if it is a sufficient condition to lead to the consequent and on the right side if it is a necessary condition. In other words, "I can get to the Beach if I Hire a taxi" becomes H ⊃ B where as "I can get to the Beach only if I Hire a taxi" becomes B ⊃ H (unless I'm not even getting that right...). This seems straightforward enough but it also seems to make telling which is antecedent and which is consequent impossible without referencing the original statement, which seems to defeat the point of propositional representation. Is there a standard way of writing things that maintains the distinction between sufficient and necessary conditions and makes antecedent and consequent clear?

Secondly, I'm confused as to which part of a statement is the antecedent and which is the consequent. My book tells me that part of a complex statement following "only if" is always the consequent. So if I were to have an example statement "You will get a speeding ticket only if you are speeding" this would mean that Speeding is the consequent and getting a Ticket is the antecedent, but I was under the impression it should be the other way around since the act of speeding is the condition that leads to result of getting a ticket. I could understand if the ticket is seen as the antecedent because it would allow you to deduce that the necessary condition of speeding had been met whereas knowing the condition of speeding had been met would not necessarily allow the deduction that a ticket had been issued (after all, people certainly do get away with it) but I had always assumed the real world cause and affect would be most important. Either way, I would really appreciate some clarification on this.

E.g. (∀xϕ)→ψ or (∃xϕ)→ψ.

Note: Exclude definitions, which often state "..χ if for every.." where 'if' is really intended to mean 'if and only if'. What I mean here is a formula whose head is a conditional, not biconditional.

Also, I do not mean trivial, generic theorems of that form which you can conjure up, but established ones that are that form.

If I am fat then I eat a lot.

I am not fat, but I do eat a lot.

In the above sentence the antecedent was false but the consequent was true. According to PL the conditional(if) is thus true. I was wondering why this is the case. All the other values in the truth table for conditionals make sense but this value is pretty strange...

I was wondering if it was because once we say the antecedent is false the conditional becomes N/A in a sense. Any help guys?

> some antecedents to the African novel might exist in Africa's oral traditions.

Last year, I was part of the minority on the sub that believed Ritesh was real. Despite Rakhi's narratives having more holes than plot, I was inclined to believe her. The pathos in her voice when she spoke about him, that heartbreaking song she sang to him on V day, hiding her tears behind that lone, red heart balloon -- it felt too visceral.

I was finally disabused after listening to an interview reality TV veteran Amit Tandon, where he categorically said Ritesh doesn't exist. I made a post about it here only to find out everyone knew Ritesh was fiction but me.

I was both enraged and impressed by how convincingly Rakhi could lie. Still, there was something genuine about her heartache, whatever its cause.

Now the real Ritesh appears to have stood up. Is this another eyewash? The WhatsApp courtship story sounded just about implausible enough to be true. Too pat.

What's the consensus on Ritesh? Is he an actor? Didn't he have a scandalous backstory? Multiple spouses, deception, total disregard for Rakhi's feelings, that his decision to remain anonymous was irrevocable. All this seems wildly out of character then.

I decided to choose credulity but after listening to BB commentators plainly calling out BB and Rakhi's bluff, feel like I've been misled yet again.

If it's all an act then it's very telling of how little BB respects his audience.

Can someone please explain this fallacy in a really simple way? Like I don’t understand it at all, is this fallacy different from Post hoc ergo propter hoc ? Thanks

We all know about Dracula and Carmilla popularizing the notion of vampires, and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, but the literary beginnings of Mummy/Egyptian Curse tales is a bit more obscure.

Napoleon's forays into Egypt helped set off a an Egyptology craze in 19th century London perhaps inspiring Jane Loudon’s 1827 novel The Mummy: A tale of the 22nd Century which was the first story to explore a mummified Egyptian returning to life. Available on Google books it apparently a long but entertaining read.

Louisa May Alcott contributed to mummy fiction with an 1869 short story: Lost in a Pyramid, or the Mummy’s Curse.

Bram Stoker's 1903 The Jewel of Seven Stars is dark atmospheric/horror tale that develops idea more fully. It had was republished in 1912 with a different ending. Check and see which ending you have if you acquire it to read.

The discovery of King Tut's tomb in the 1920's supercharged interest in all things Egyptian once again and led to first movie The Mummy with Boris Karloff, which borrowed many elements from Stoker's novel.

More recently Anne Rice followed in Stoker's footsteps by mining not just vampire lore and but also mummy lore with The Mummy: or Ramses the Damned

Fun historical foot note: Stoker's wife Florence was once engaged to Oscar Wilde.

If & only if Q then P

Not Q

Therefore, not P

To phrase it in a better way

If my parents had sex then i'd have a biological sibling

My parents didn't have sex

therefore no biological sibling

Below I have provided three example sentences with multiple antecedents and their respective pronoun(s). So, my question is as follows: How do I determine which antecedent the pronoun refers to?

Dudley quickly found the largest snake in the place. It could have wrapped its body twice around Uncle Vernon‘s car and crushed it into a trash can – but at the moment it didn‘t look in the mood. In fact, it was fast asleep.

For example, researchers interviewed selection specialists from 33 firms widely regarded to be at the forefront of research on managerial effectiveness in the 1960s, and found that all of them used only clinical combinations of their selection information.

Prior to instituting the WOSBs, failure rates at Officer Cadet Training Units were at 20% to 30%, and many recruits who might have succeeded in training were rejected by the interview boards on the basis of such factors as which grammar school they attended or their perceived socialist opinions.

I have a (Chilean) friend that I have spoken Spanish with for ~5 years, and to this day she almost never uses antecedents when talking about people she lives with (e.g., her family).

"Estan aqui." or "Me llaman." or things of that nature.

For the first few months of this it was either confusing (WHO is calling for you?!) or nefarious ("They" are here? WTF, the government? Aliens?!?).

She'll tell me stuff like she'll be hanging out with her friend Juana in 2 weeks, and then 15 days later I'll randomly get a "Fuimos al..." like I'm supposed to remember the -mos in this case is she + Juana + some other friends.

I literally feel like I'm in a horror movie playing the pronoun game, because I've never even seen someone do this in English unless they're trying to fabricate tension in a movie lol. Is this a quirk of hers, or is this a common feature of the language (/Chilean culture)?

This is the proposition.

What's confusing is that it seems to me like the antecedent is true (that there exists an X that is an element of real numbers that is greater than 1).

Can someone explain why the antecedent is false here?

Republicans (America) are a "Death Cult". They are Pro-Life only as an antecedent to being Pro-Death.

During this Age of Covid, younger republicans do tell me pretty often that old people are useless and just a drain on the economy. That they should have just passed on the vaccinations and let nature take its course and get rid of a few money sinks that wont ever produce anything useful ever again.

Then I said, "so you do admit the vaccines work?". That's when I realized this is essentially a low key death cult but no one's actually conscious of this fact. Everything else adds up to the big R being for admiration of the "Reaper". They are against abortions because that's one less person who can die later if it gets aborted. They know the vaccines do actually work, but this can be openly denied in public in worship of the Death Cult.

Same thing with hatred against immigrants because that give them someone to want to shoot to kill. Republicans are always with the killing: kill the libs, kill the minorities, and the oh so popular kill the gays. Even the Capitol 6th riot was to probably kill a bunch of senators.

The only kind of life Republicans support is Pre-Life, and as soon as a child is born into this world it's practically a race to see for how fast this child can make it to the other side. Once a child is born there is no support or resources easily available for them with which to continue their life. Those who are drug addicted and the homeless similarly have the rug further pulled out from under them to accelerate their final meeting with the cloaked and hooded one. Even fast food culture and hatred for anything not deep fried or diabetes producing is an accelerant towards a Mc-Casket. Denial of Climate Change? Why put the breaks on something that will ultimately cause a total extinction event or at least a Mad-Max situation with bands of looting Urban-Warfare.

The death cult is even more evident now during Covid were many right wingers are anti-mask and anti-vaccine in order to eliminate the elderly, infirm, and immune-compromised. No one is free from this Darwinian race to see who can make it into a grave as fast as possible: not women, not children, not the old, and definitely not the vulnerable. The Death-Cult is quite fair in that it has no mercy for anyone especially the infirm.

It kind of all adds up policy wise that Republicans are trying to maximize the amount of people dying. Their every policy decision that are anti-government inte

An "If p, then q" statement is false only when "p", the antecedent, is true and the "q", the consequent, is false.

How then would one treat an if-then statement whose antecedent is, for lack of a better word, hypothetical? Can such a statement be false?

For example, consider the following statements made by knights (always make true statements) and/or knaves (always make false statements) in this problem: https://brilliant.org/practice/indirection/?p=3. There are two islanders, Alice and Bob. You don't know if they're both knights, both knaves, or one of each.

Alice says: "If you asked Bob if they was a Knight, Bob would respond 'no'."

Bob says: "If you asked Alice if they was a Knight, Alice would respond 'yes'."

I'm reading "If you asked Bob..." as "If you were to ask Bob..." which is a hypothetical scenario and getting hung on whether a hypothetical scenario can have a truth value.

I'm probably overthinking it and getting hung up on semantics, so would appreciate your thoughts and/or similar examples. Thanks!

Related question: https://www.reddit.com/r/logic/comments/7rtx35/help_with_knight_and_knave_question/

As a 4th year student in the Leadership Psychology PsyD program at William James College, I am exploring the antecedents of work engagement, and I need your help with my research study! Feel free to share this survey with your network. Please use the following link to participate or forward to others: The antecedents of work engagement. If you have any questions about the survey, please reply to this post. Thank you for your help!

I was watching a video by GMAT ninja and he said according to gmat, an antecedent can not refer back to a possessive noun, yet on target test prep it says that it’s acceptable. In some cases TTP made more sense and vice versa, for example:

Amber’s husband eats so much that she calls him a pig.

Here the pronoun “she” can be ambiguous because who is the antecedent? Amber or some other woman?

Another example:

Jim Morrison’s music is delightful, but his poetry is ethereal.

Now in this example “his”, IMO unambiguously refers back to Jim Morrison, But in this case “his” is a possessive pronoun.

I need your opinions on this + is the possessive pronoun included to the rule?

Here is Wikipedia’s ruling on this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possessive_antecedent

Its my understanding that Vietnam's control over its southern territories is a surprisingly recent development, only going back a few centuries, and before that it was an independent series of states called Champa. Considering how embattled the South Vietnamese position was, and how weak its legitimacy was, did the state and its American allies attempt to make use of the fact that it lined up surprisingly well with the most recently assimilated territories into Vietnam to argue that it was an entity set apart from Northern Vietnam?

seems to me he is relying in part on platonic ideals. Also I got mightily irked with his view that Eric had to justify his views and he, as a presuppositionalist, did not have to justify his views.I

Seems to me he thinks that science developed by atheist Japanese and atheist Chinese and atheist Scandinavian scientists is dubious.

Later, when chairs finally became accessible to the general public, its design evolved rapidly to reflect the fashions of the day.

The following argument was presented to me. The presenter has been combative and says because i cannot prove him wrong he is right

“(1) P(A|B)>P(A). (2) P(A&B)>P(A)P(B). (3) P(A)-P(A&B)<P(A)-P(A)P(B). (4) P(A&~B)<P(A)P(~B). (5) P(A|~B)<P(A).

So if B is evidence for A, not-B is evidence against A.”

But this conclusion offered is text book denying the antecedent.

So from 1 can assume that P(A)<P(B)? 2 is bayes 3 i get that if 2 is legit, How does 3 inform us about 4? Does 5 actually translate to, “So if B is evidence for A, not-B is evidence against A?”

E.g. (∀xϕ)→ψ or (∃xϕ)→ψ.

Note: Exclude definitions, which often state "..χ if for every.." where 'if' is really intended to mean 'if and only if'. What I mean here is a formula whose head is a conditional, not biconditional.

Also, I do not mean trivial, generic theorems of that form which you can conjure up, but established ones that are that form.