From owner-cse584-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Mon Apr 2 11:30:02 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l32FU2cg017463 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2007 11:30:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front3.acsu.buffalo.edu (coldfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.6.89]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l32FTmMR050222 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2007 11:29:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 14956 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2007 15:29:48 -0000 Received: from mailscan8.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.55) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 2 Apr 2007 15:29:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 14927 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2007 15:29:48 -0000 Received: from defer.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.58) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 2 Apr 2007 15:29:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 3955 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2007 15:29:39 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by defer.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 2 Apr 2007 15:29:39 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 4304844 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Mon, 2 Apr 2007 11:29:39 -0400 Delivered-To: cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu Received: (qmail 25818 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2007 15:29:39 -0000 Received: from mailscan4.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.136) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 2 Apr 2007 15:29:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 7224 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2007 15:29:36 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 2 Apr 2007 15:29:36 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (rapaport@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l32FTacu017433 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2007 11:29:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l32FTaki017432 for cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu; Mon, 2 Apr 2007 11:29:36 -0400 (EDT) X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <200704021529.l32FTaki017432@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 11:29:36 -0400 Reply-To: "William J. Rapaport" Sender: "Philosophy of Computer Science, Spring 2007" From: "William J. Rapaport" Subject: VALIDITY To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1029; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/2997/Mon Apr 2 06:19:52 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 1135 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: VALIDITY ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To follow up on Albert's posting about valid/sound/true/false... Another issue some of you are still not clear on is the relation of one valid or invalid argument to another. If you have two arguments such that the conclusion of one is a premise of the other, the question of the validity of one of them is independent of the question of the validity of the other. Here's an example: Arg 1: All cats are animals (true) Tweety the bird is an animal (true) Therefore, Tweety is a cat (false) Arg 1 is invalid and unsound. Arg 2: Tweety the bird is a cat (false) All cats fly (false) Therefore, Tweety flies (true) Arg 2 is valid! The fact that one of its premises is false is irrelevant to its validity. So is the fact that that premise was unsoundly inferred in Arg 1. This argument is valid because IF it were true that Tweety was a cat and that all cats fly, then it WOULD HAVE TO BE true that Tweety flies. From owner-cse584-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Mon Apr 2 13:47:18 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l32HlI0R027724 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2007 13:47:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front2.acsu.buffalo.edu (warmfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.6.88]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l32HlB8j060755 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2007 13:47:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 6428 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2007 17:47:11 -0000 Received: from mailscan6.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.95) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 2 Apr 2007 17:47:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 3971 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2007 17:47:11 -0000 Received: from defer.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.58) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 2 Apr 2007 17:47:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 8931 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2007 17:46:55 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by defer.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 2 Apr 2007 17:46:55 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 4309201 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Mon, 2 Apr 2007 13:46:55 -0400 Delivered-To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Received: (qmail 674 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2007 17:46:55 -0000 Received: from mailscan3.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.135) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 2 Apr 2007 17:46:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 9440 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2007 17:46:54 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 2 Apr 2007 17:46:54 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (rapaport@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l32HksPO027693 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2007 13:46:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l32HksXW027692 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Mon, 2 Apr 2007 13:46:54 -0400 (EDT) X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <200704021746.l32HksXW027692@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 13:46:54 -0400 Reply-To: "William J. Rapaport" Sender: "Philosophy of Computer Science, Spring 2007" From: "William J. Rapaport" Subject: POSITION PAPER 3 GRADING STATISTICS To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1335; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SUBJ_ALL_CAPS autolearn=no version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/2997/Mon Apr 2 06:19:52 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 1061 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: POSITION PAPER 3 GRADING STATISTICS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Here are the statistics on Position Paper #3: 484 584 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ A 4 17 A- 7 2 B+ 4 1 B 3 1 B- 2 1 C+ 0 0 C 0 0 C- 1 n/a D+ 1 n/a D 0 0 F 0 0 avg 21 pts 23 pts B+ A- Thus, the class averages are steadily improving! I will hand the papers back on Wednesday. As usual, if you would like to discuss your paper or have the original grader look at your paper again, please let him know (and, for regrading, indicate which aspect of it you would like him to look at more carefully). And, as usual, if you would *then* like the *other* grader to look at it, too, please let us know.