recaldo wrote: Pisto3 wrote:
And even if you're not explicitly stating "According to Webster's dictionary, an orphan is..." you did say to be an orphan is to not know one's roots or past. Unless my example is flawed, I don't think that's right. That's why people have been saying you're not an orphan, because not knowing one's roots or past is not characteristic of an orphan. Orphans can and often do know their roots and past.
Agree 100% -- look at this...in plain terms
"X is Y"
X=Y (= defined as "always =")
An orphan = someone who does not know their roots or past
LOL. That is not how you would model that statement. It would be Set X(Y, Z, V)
Even if that was true...
Set x = "characteristics of an orphan"
Y = someone who does not know their roots
Z = someone who does not know their past
V = some other fact about orphans
If you are saying that all characteristics are part of the set - Set X MUST include Y Z AND V), this is false because some orphans do know their roots and some orphans do know their past.
If you are saying that only one characteristic must be part of the set, the logic is invalid anyway. I could make fact V be "someone wearing a yellow shirt" and then I would be an orphan as well.
Come to think of it, I was adopted...
<never took symbolic logic> -> SUE ME IF THIS IS WRONG