Title: "T'Pring's Argument, Logically Analyzed"
1. I am not Paramount/Viacom.
2. If one is not Paramount/Viacom, one does not own the
copyright on Spock, Kirk , Stonn and T'Pring.
3. If one does not own the copyright on Spock, Kirk, Stonn and
T'Pring, one may not be paid for writing about Spock, Kirk, Stonn
4. If one is not Paramount/Viacom, one may not be paid for
writing about Spock, Kirk, Stonn and T'Pring.
(modus ponens, 2,3)
5. I do not own the copyright on Spock, Kirk, Stonn and
(modus ponens, 1,2)
6. I am not being paid for writing about Spock, Kirk, Stonn
(modus ponens, 3,5)
7. I do not own the copyright on Spock, Kirk, Stonn and
T'Pring and I am not being paid to write about them.
Summary: Last semester I managed to enjoy a logic class, even though it was taught by a professor who did not once mention Star Trek. In fact, I loved it. Logic for me turned out to be one of those fields I brush up against in my endless pursuit of knowledge that I know I might devote my life to if I had a life to devote to each of the many fields I encounter in such a way. Having already planned to devote my life to language (which may be why the science of analyzing statements happened to appeal to me) I had to be satisfied with thoroughly enjoying the course and being awed at how identical to algebra it is when you get down to the basic theorems--I guess I've always liked the concepts of math, it was the numbers I couldn't handle. Among other projects, like a simple three-step proof of life after death and pointing out to my professor that the author of our text had committed fallacy of ad hominem circumstantial only twelve pages after defining it, I discovered that T'Pring's argument was a lot more complicated than I'd thought at first.
Feedback: firstname.lastname@example.org Archive: anywhere you like, as long as you let me know where.
T'PRING'S ARGUMENT LOGICALLY ANALYZED
"If your captain were victor, he would not want me, and so I would have Stonn. If you were victor, you would free me because I had dared to challenge, and again I would have Stonn. But if you did not free me, it would be the same, for you would be gone, and I would have your name and your property, and Stonn would still be there."
K = I call the Kalifee and choose Kirk as my champion
C = Your captain wins
Y = You win
~W = Your captain doesn't want me
F = You free me
~F = You do not free me
G = You are gone
N = I have your name
P = I have your property
S = I have Stonn
According to T'Pring's argument, these statements can be taken as givens:
C > ~W = if your captain were victor he would not want me
~W > S = and so I would have Stonn.
Y > F = if you were victor you would free me
F > S = and again I would have Stonn.
~F > (G + N + P+ S) = if you did not free me, you would be gone, etc.
and since it is an enthymeme, an unspoken premise must be added:
K > (C v Y) = given Kalifee and Kirk as champion, either he or you will win.
Thus follows the proof that given K plus these conditions, T'Pring will have Stonn:
1. K (given)
2. K > (C v Y) (given)
3. C > ~W (given)
4. ~W > S (given)
5. Y > F (given)
6. F > S (given)
7. ~F > (G + N + P + S) (given)
8. Y > (F v ~F (addition, 5)
9. C v Y (modus ponens, 1, 2)
10. ~W v (F v ~F) (constructive dilemma, 3, 8, 9)
11. ~W v (S v [G + N + P + S]) (constructive dilemma, 6, 7, 10)
12. ~W v (S v S) (simplification, 11)
13. ~W v S (tautology, 12)
14. S v S (modus ponens, 4, 13)
15. S (tautology, 14)
It is a valid argument. Its soundness, however, depends on the truth of the premises, and the premise C >~W in particular should be examined for truth considering the history of said captain.