[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 1 Jn 2:19 and universal negation - yes!
At 9:43 AM -0700 6/9/97, Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church wrote in
response to my rather sarcastic post :-) :
>As they say at Hertz, "Not exactly." The contrapositive of
>
> If Fido is a dog, then he is a canine
> [If A , then B]
>
>is
>
> If Fido is not a canine, then he is not a dog.
> [If not B , then not A].
>
>Let's get this straight, please. :)
>
>Now if this still does not make much sense to you (you're possibly
>thinking this is a truism), then it is because you selected a
>bi-conditional statement (what definitions are made of, i.e., dog being
>defined as a canine). This still works, of course, but if you want to
>really appreciate the goings-on, then just stick to a conditional, like:
>
> If Fido is a dog, then he is an animal.
>
>Therefore,
>
> If Fido is not an animal, then he is not a dog.
Yes, Paul, I understand the *logic* quite clearly, I just misread your
original post. I *thought* you had characterized the contrapositive as 'If
not A, then not B' rather than 'If not B, then not A.' I'm sorry for my
carelessness.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Micheal W. Palmer mwpalmer@earthlink.net
Religion & Philosophy
Meredith College
Visit the Greek Language and Linguistics Gateway at
http://home.earthlink.net/~mwpalmer/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
References: