Logic

Where does it say that only some are mortal? It's wrong

google: Syllogism Barbari AAI

Because some doesn't mean that some aren't. I remember this in my logic class. It's true that some cats are mammals because all cats are mammals. Get it? It's not saying that the rest of the cats aren't mammals.

Yes of course. "All" is stronger than "some". But I want to basically know if there are some greeks which are not mortal.

>>7960494
Join the /sci/ logic group. It's still in it's first week so everyone is at about the same point you are.

>>7960521
but op's venn diagram directly shows some Greeks as not mortal

>>7960536
it shows that some greeks are not men

Left side is correct. Right side is incorrect.

Right side implies that because some sections of Greek and man are not touching mortality, there are exceptions to the mortality rule.

Left side: all men, greeks and mortal greeks are contained in order in mortality.

>>7960494
"All men are moral" = men is a subset of mortal
"All greeks are men" = greeks is a subset of men
So greeks is a subset of mortals
ex.
A = [1, 2, 3, 4]
B = [1, 2, 3]
C = [1, 2]
B subset A; C subset B; all C are in A
Thus all greeks are mortal.

>>7960521
OP's use of the word "only" suggests the wiki isn't implying what you're implying though.

>>7960538
but the question states Greeks are men

it says so in the fucking title

I'm glad that everyone seems to agree that all greeks are mortal, but why does Syllogism define it differently ? I don't understand....

Let [math] A [/math] be the set of all men, [math] B [/math] be the set of all mortals and [math] C [/math] be the set of all Greeks. The premises says that
[math] A \subset B [/math] and [math] C \subset A [/math].

All Greeks are mortal means that [math] C \subset B [/math] which is true by transitivity.

Some Greeks are mortal means that [math] B \cap C \neq \emptyset[/math] which is not necessary true because for example it's possible that Greeks don't exist.

>>7960558

Give us the fucking link to where it says that

>>7960575
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Barbari_.28AAI-1.29

>>7960494
>according to wiki only some greeks are mortal

No. It says 'some greeks are mortal'

There is no 'only'

Why are you so fucking dumb?

>>7960572
>which is not necessary true

Wrong

If no Greeks exist, then it is still true, because it is not false

>>7960586
Some greeks are mortal - it's trivial. I want to know if ALL greeks are mortal...

This is a basic hypothetical syllogism.
Man -> Mortal
Greek -> Mortal
Therefore Greek -> Mortal

This may be stupid, but maybe the site uses the word "men" as ONLY the masculine versions of a human being, and while ALL human beings are mortal, you cannot reach the conclusion that women are also mortal just with the provided information.

>>7960611
Ignore this, just saw the pic.

"Some Greeks are mortal" is true, and so is "All Greeks are mortal". The first is the weaker statement, and in this context that is the preferred answer. The reason is that when you combine logical statements with unnecessarily strong statements, you end up with a more restricted statement altogether.

Statements with universal quantifiers subsume all identical statements with existential quantifiers replacing them. This is a basic fact of first order logic and pretty trivial to prove with basic set theory.

>>7960605

Look at the first one then, moron

The wiki is listing every valid syllogism If AxPx is true then so is 3xPx

>>7960619
>Statements with universal quantifiers subsume all identical statements with existential quantifiers replacing them. This is a basic fact of first order logic and pretty trivial to prove with basic set theory.

Are you sure?

Tell me then, how do you deal with this

All A are B
All B are C

If no C exist

Is "All C are A" true?
Then, is "Some C are A" true?

You're assuming all Greeks are men you shitlord

ITT fuckers explaining an extremely simple logic problem to prove they're smart, and ignoring that the most interesting part of this post is that OP is a dumbass that can't properly take in and convey information.

This is the equivalent of someone saying:

Which is right? 2+2=4 or 2+2=9? Wikipedia says it's 9.

>>7960650
Just that it's not only wikipedia saying this. Google it.

how on earth is this a fucking argument? how is it logical to have some convoluted answer to an extremely simple question. fucking faggots

>>7960535
Where?

>>7960654

HOW FUCKING DENSE ARE YOU

HOLY SHIT

>>7960659
This thread
>>7937173