Article View: sci.logic
Article #650Re: Multiple Truth Values
From: Russell Turpin
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:32
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:32
17 lines
1213 bytes
1213 bytes
-*---- In article <1993Jan12.201545.27599@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt) writes: > Australian and American courts interrogate witnesses in a language that > presumes intuitionistic logic, in that they draw a distinction between > straight answers and hedged and insist on the former. ... One could interpret this to mean that the courts presume that anything other than Boolean logic is an attempt to deceive rather than to convey more subtle information. I suspect that a parent whose child says "I didn't not break the vase" would view things similarly. In short, I think it would be very easy to argue that the courts and parents are coming down on the side of boolean logic. Russell
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<ll6e6pINNqei@tokio.cs.utexas.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!newsReferences:
<1993Jan12.083955.19685@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!news From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) Newsgroups: sci.logic Subject: Re: Multiple Truth Values Date: 12 Jan 1993 15:32:09 -0600 Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin Lines: 17 Message-ID: <ll6e6pINNqei@tokio.cs.utexas.edu> References: <1993Jan12.083955.19685@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: tokio.cs.utexas.edu Summary: What does this tell us?