Update Clean Up

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 23:00:24 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 11:48:23 -0700, Gene E. Bloch
wrote:

On 3/14/2014, Char Jackson posted:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 13:11:46 +0000, Good Guy
wrote:

On 14/03/2014 03:56, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2014 15:36:55 +0000, Good Guy
wrote:

My current Security packagae is McAfee Live Safe snip ...

I know people here don't like McAfee stuff but you need to try it
to know it better.

Umm, I don't need to try it. ;-)


My suggestion was made to the OP. I never try to teach old dogs new
tricks so don't know what made you think it was meant for you.

Ok, then I'll amend my post to say "No one needs to try it." Better?

But it *was* a syllogism.

It wasn't

"I know people here don't like McAfee stuff but you need to try it",

it was

"I know people here don't like McAfee stuff but you need to try it to
know it better".

I.e., if you don't try it you won't get to know it better.

That seems harmless to me.

Thanks, but I don't need to know it better (than I already do), and
therefore I still don't need to try it.

The truth of a syllogism is a logical truth, not dependent on a
particular instance, unless that instance contradicts the syllogism.

By definition, if A -- B is valid, then when A is true, B must be true,
and when A is false, B can be true or false. Conversely, when B is true,
A can be true or false and when B is false, A must be false.

But if there's a real-world situation where A is true and B is false,
then the syllogism is invalid, i.e., disproved.

In this case, A is "you want to learn more", and B is "you must try it".

So if you don't want to learn more, the syllogism remains valid
regardless of whether you must try it. The syllogism is *not*
contradicted, hence not disproved.

This is Logic 101, or even Logic 1...it's very basic.

Anyway, given your preference, you *may* try it, but you don't *need* to
try it; the syllogism quite cheerfully accepts that :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 21:31:36 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 23:00:24 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 11:48:23 -0700, Gene E. Bloch
wrote:

On 3/14/2014, Char Jackson posted:

SNIP

"I know people here don't like McAfee stuff but you need to try it to
know it better".

I.e., if you don't try it you won't get to know it better.

That seems harmless to me.

Thanks, but I don't need to know it better (than I already do), and
therefore I still don't need to try it.

The truth of a syllogism is a logical truth, not dependent on a
particular instance, unless that instance contradicts the syllogism.

By definition, if A -- B is valid, then when A is true, B must be true,
and when A is false, B can be true or false. Conversely, when B is true,
A can be true or false and when B is false, A must be false.

But if there's a real-world situation where A is true and B is false,
then the syllogism is invalid, i.e., disproved.

In this case, A is "you want to learn more", and B is "you must try it".

So if you don't want to learn more, the syllogism remains valid
regardless of whether you must try it. The syllogism is *not*
contradicted, hence not disproved.

This is Logic 101, or even Logic 1...it's very basic.

Anyway, given your preference, you *may* try it, but you don't *need* to
try it; the syllogism quite cheerfully accepts that :-)

A couple of remarks:

1. Syllogism is the wrong word. I think proposition is more correct for
the above. A syllogism is a series of propositions leading to a
conclusion, such as this:
A implies B
A, therefore B

2. I *could* have mentioned that if you know someone who wants to learn
more and who did so without trying the program, the proposition is
disproved, but that would have embarrassed me ;-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)