Post by Andy Walker
Post by abelard Post by Yellow
You do not understand that men in households where they expected their
wife to receive her pension at 60 are not affected by the financial lose
when this did not in fact happen?
fyi, i can't make sense of that word concoction either!
That's because there are too many "not"s in it! Try deleting
the first two. It would also help slightly if "You do ..." is replaced
by "Do you ..." and if "lose" is replaced by "loss". But I expect you
i expect you are correct :-)
but i am a very literal aspergers type...
nots are very slippery fellows!
The asymmetry of not
Any statement properly pointing at reasonably clearly defined elements
of the real world can be imagined to be factual or not.
A lie is a statement regarded as factually not so in the real world.
Negative statements are not symmetrical with positive statements.
Negative statements do not all have the same type of meaning.
Types of negative sentence
No unicorns is not isometric with no horses, because there are  no
unicorns to not exist.
There are no horses in this room is not isometric with there is no
thing (at all) in this room.
There are no horses in this room is not isometric with there are no
Liar means, what you say is not so or it is untrue. (See here
for discussion of psychological liestates.)
The relative interpretation of not not
Where is the horse
Consider the statement, there is not not a horse in this room. This
can be interpreted relative to the horse or relative to the room.
Mathematicians habitually interpret not not a horse to mean that
there is a horse: this is an unsafe and potentially ill-defined
Consider not (not a horse). Given that from Type 3 above, when not
a horse means there are no horses at all, then not not a horse
cannot mean there is a horse; for there was no horse to be notted in
the first place (as with the unicorn in Type 1). So in the case of no
horse or three unicorns, not not would tend to mean not at all at all.
As Brouwer might have said, An absurdity of an absurdity is still an
Unfortunately, many a mathematician seems to think that absurdity of
an absurdity is a proof.
It will be seen that when deciding just what is not, it is sensible to
first decide where the item is; or where it might have been or where
it is now, if anywhere!
If the horse was not in the room and was last seen in the paddock, it
may turn out to be reasonable to interpret the horse is not not in
the room as the horse is now in the room. This is not a reasonable
interpretation if you never had a horse, or if a unicorn were the
subject of discussion.
However, if the room was the focus of discussion, then concluding that
there were no horse in the room would perhaps suggest the room was a
suitable place to work. Interest in the absent horse could well then
become an issue to be ignored unless, of course, there were now an
elephant in the room.
In the absence of any zoo in the room, attention would very likely be
upon whether there was a table, some pencils, paper and a bottle of
whisky in the room.
Where is the room?
Consider the empty roomthink about what it is empty of, is it empty
of horses or empty of cockroaches or empty of air?
Consider, not an empty roomdo we have a full room? If so, how full?
Or does not an empty room mean no room at all at all to be empty?
In set terms; does the set exist? What is supposedly in the set?
Or even not in the set? Where is that which is currently not in
the set? Is it anywhere?
Or have you been lured into discussing unicorns?
Nots can tie you in knots if your attention wanders from reality. One
must always know just what it is that one intends to get notted.
First catch your room, then find your horse; if your communications
are to maintain contact with reality and, thus, with sanity.
there are apparent assumptions behind yellow's posts which others are
pointing out...and i also don't share...
like...'life will be fair' or 'you can trust government' :-)