Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    An indifference relation over {w_pq, w_qr, w_pr} can only... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The system of Groenendijk (2009) and Mascarenhas (2009) is inadequate for representing the issue in question.

    An indifference relation over {w_pq, w_qr, w_pr} can only generate issues whose possibilities are unions of equivalence classes, excluding non-transitive dependency structures.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Indifference relations are by definition transitive, reflexive, and symmetric, so they partition any domain into equivalence classes by logical necessity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Issues generated from equivalence classes must respect class boundaries; mixing elements across classes violates the indifference relation's defining structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Non-transitive dependencies introduce external structure incompatible with indifference partitions, creating logical inconsistency in possibility generation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Indifference relations can be partial rather than total; sub-relations on {w_pq, w_qr, w_pr} may generate issues through non-equivalence pairings.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Dependencies need not be transitive to constrain issues; non-transitive constraints can still create valid logical restrictions on possibility unions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim conflates indifference *over* a set with indifference *within* each element; these generate different issue-possibility structures.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Philosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    Dependencies need not be transitive to constrain issues; non-transitive constrai...Indifference relations are by definition transitive, reflexive, and symmetric, s...Indifference relations can be partial rather than total; sub-relations on {w_pq,...Issues generated from equivalence classes must respect class boundaries; mixing ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Non-transitive dependencies introduce external structure incompatible with indif...The claim conflates indifference *over* a set with indifference *within* each el...The system of Groenendijk (2009) and Mascarenhas (2009) is inadequate for repres...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit