I originally thought we had figured out where his confusion lied. But, now with his subsequent statements, there seems to be a whole new set of confusions. Whether they’re confusions on his part, in context, or confusions he set as a pretext, I find to still be unknown.
You almost lost me at commune. But, to go forwards, with this, your latest obfuscation, we have a whole new set of problems on our hands.
Ahem…
Can language be used as a form of manipulation? And more importantly, if so; can people in a commune (sic) practice language in a way that makes that impossible.
Deductive reasoning deals in necessity.
Inductive reasoning deals in sufficiency.
Is that the rule or just the ideal?
Well the first part is necessarily true.
The second part is sufficiently true.
Necessary = I need 3 cups of water
Sufficient = 3 cups of water; 1 cup of water is insufficient, even though it’s a part of what’s necessary.
1 cup of water is necessary, but not sufficient
Necessary = I need liquid refreshment
Sufficient = 1 cup of water, or 1 cup of grape juice, or 1 cup of milk. Any one of them is sufficient, but no single one of them is necessary.
1 cup of water is sufficient, but not necessary, but may be considered the necessary element if that’s what’s chosen
Thus what is sufficient may be considered equivalent to what’s necessary, if it’s used in a place where what’s necessary has a certain degree of polymorphism or ambiguity. If a pet is necessary, then any of a dog, a cat or a gerbil will be sufficient; individually, no single one of them would be considered necessary, but once chosen it can be considered to have satisfied the necessary constraint due to the “is a” relationship (ie: a cat is a pet).
You’ve lost me, I think I could reverse the terms, easily.
That doesn’t ring true to me at all.
The concept of ‘necessary/sufficient’ philosophically mostly takes place in the realm of deductive reasoning – it’s about definitions and material implications, things like that.
Here’s deductive reasoning examples of both necessity and sufficiency:
A implies B, to me, seems to be saying ‘Knowing A is true is sufficient to conclude that B is true.’
It also, simultaneously, seems to be saying, ‘If you know A is true, it is necessary that B is true.’
Also, ‘If you know that B is not true, it is necessary that A is not true.’
or let’s say you had the following set of premises:
(M and B) implies X
(M and A) implies X
A NAND B
X implies ((A or B) and M)
This, to me, suggests the following things according to my understanding of the terms ‘necessary’ and ‘sufficient’:
M is necessary for X.
M and B is sufficient for X.
M and A is sufficient for X.
B is not necessary for X.
A is not necessary for X.
So I think both terms apply perfectly well in the context of deductive logic, I don’t see why you made your dichotomy.
Not to mention that deductive logic can be viewed as a subset of inductive logic (all deductive logic rules are derivable from the laws of probability).
This is sufficient, but not exhaustive.
Sufficiency can take place through deductive reasoning, but when it does, it does so necessarily: “Sufficient = necessarily sufficient but not necessary”. Deductive reasoning necessarily deals in necessity of either the necessary kind or the sufficient kind.
If and only if A and B exhaust all possible options, and if A and/or B with anything other than M cannot exist.
Wow, no.
In practical application, the truth of deductive statements are subject to probability, sure, but in theory all deduction is certain because the veracity of the premises are unquestioned - merely definitions given as true (and therefore deductively, the deduction necessarily follows).
“X is an odd number” is sufficient, but not necessary, to entail “X is a real number”.
That would take a really, really long time to prove inductively, compared to deductively. 
I took a whole class once that was an entire semester talking about how time factors into reasoning. Like your whole seemingly random introduction or “before something happens”. You lost me on that one. It was a long time ago when I took that class. If you can come up with a question regarding time that relates in some discernible way to the subject here, then it’ll probably spark my memory and I’ll spit out a bunch of smart stuff for ya.
“things happening” and “something happens” are objects. Now look at what’s happening around you and if you see that those things include all the necessary conditions to sufficiently represent and/or identify with what’s happening then you know that it’s happening.
Watching you try and complicate this is a little boring. Do you really not understand?
I don’t know what you’re talking about bro. What I said was just a plain truth about the context in which these concepts are talked about most. Either you agree or disagree. You’re just blabbering here. My eyes roll into the back of my head reading stuff like this.
That’s an incomplete sentence. You started the sentence with an ‘IF’, but didn’t provide any ‘then.’
Which leads me to think that the ‘then’ was the last sentence of what you quoted.
But…you misunderstand. The last sentence of what you quoted wasn’t a conclusion. It was a premise. I think I made that clear, when I said “let’s say you had the following set of premises”
So, no, that’s a premise. It’s a given, no "if"s necessary.
Wow, yes. You’re not a master Bayesian, clearly. The rules of deductive logic (at least all of the basic ones, of that I am sure) are included implicitly within Bayes Theorem, which itself is a natural consequence of basic probability theory. Study it a bit brother.
Daktoria
A roof over the head…but not a mansion.
Water is a necessity it is sufficient to give life.
Sufficient means enough but more is welcome or could be had. It is settling for what you have or getting.
Necessity is bare minimal.
Water isn’t sufficient for life. But it is necessary, as far as I’m aware.
Yes water is necessary, but only a combination of water, food, and protection from the elements are sufficient to maintain life.
Nit picking is not a necessity to irritate but, it seems sufficient enough to raise irritation.
Well the whole idea is to distinguish objects from one another and then identify them with one another according to properties that they possess so that we can through this process come down to what the definitions of these objects are so that we can categorize them.
Like being unmarried is necessary for meeting the definition of bachelor, but it’s not sufficient, because you could be unmarried and that alone wouldn’t make you a bachelor. Same thing with being male. Being male is necessary for meeting the definition of bachelor, but not sufficient, because any given male could be married, which would distinguish him from bachelors and identify him with some other definition entirely. The only time a person meets the definition of bachelor is when they possess both the properties of being unmarried and being male. The possession of those two properties at the same time constitutes sufficient meeting of the criteria for the guy to meet the definition of bachelor. So some conditions are necessary, and some combination of them is sufficient. This isn’t to say that you necessarily need more than one condition met in for a given definition to be met. I could ask myself, “is kriswest a person?”, and if you meet the condition of being a person, then that you’ve met the necessary condition for being a person and meeting that one condition alone can be sufficient. Of course, a nit picker would say, “first we must ascertain that she meets the condition of being kriswest first”, and I’d be like, "no, because we’re not analyzing whether kriswest is kriswest, we’re analyzing whether kriswest is a person, the acceptance of kriswest beign kriswest is like an assumption that we don’t need to analyze because it’s purely tautological, and not in the bachelor/unmarried male way, but in the x=x way.
Am I making any sense here?
Is it as simple as
if A → B, A is sufficient but not necessary for B
iff A → B, A is necessary and sufficient for B
iff A and D, E, F… → B, A is necessary but not sufficient for B?
Most questions are unnecessary except those that are for survival of life. The instrument (thought) that is being used wants to keep the mind going and by means of that, the self is maintained. Everything becomes sufficient or adequate only to a point when thought reaches its limitations but there is no end to the questions. If there was a point where the answers were sufficient enough to put an end to the question, then the end of the self (the questioner) would occur. This is especially true with questions about reality or the meaning of life. But that’s sort of beside the point. More to the point is how answers are inadequate or more sincerely are unnecessary because the question or the problem is not necessarily a problem. Often, problems are created just to employ the instrument that wants to keep itself honed and sharp. Keep itself going that is.