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
    If fire is both present and absent in the kitchen (due to... — Carmelics
    Home/Proof of definition segments
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The standard definition V1 of a counter-example is inadequate when properties are partially located

    If fire is both present and absent in the kitchen (due to partial location), the kitchen qualifies as a counter-example under V1 because fire is absent there

    Proof of definition segments
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Topics

    Proof of definition segments

    Related

    But the kitchen is not a genuine counter-example because fire is also present th...Definition V1 counts a place as a counter-example to an inference if the reason ...The standard definition V1 of a counter-example is inadequate when properties ar...

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Proof of definition segments
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    But the kitchen is not a genuine counter-example because fire is also ...91%The standard definition V1 of a counter-example is inadequate when pro...74%Definition V1 counts a place as a counter-example to an inference if t...73%Sapakṣas are places where the inferred property is present, and vipakṣ...73%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: early-modern-india
    View source passageHide passage
    The main effect of admitting partially located properties into the system is that it is no longer the case that a property, P, and its complement, P′, are disjoint: they may now intersect. If the inferred property is partially located, then the class of “agreeing cases” (sapakṣas - places where the inferred property is present) and the class of “disagreeing cases” (vipakṣas—places where the inferred property is absent) overlap rather than being distinct classes. To put it another way, a property

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective