Can language trump logic?

In his book Professor Stewart's Horde of Mathematical Treasures, Ian Stewart describes a number of incidents of mathematicians struggling with ordinary life. In one we find Abraham Fraenkel, a mathematics professor 'of German origin' getting on a bus in Tel Aviv that was still in the bus station 5 minutes after it should have left. According to Stewart, Fraenkel waved a timetable at the driver, who replied 'What are you - a German or a professor?' to which, he tells us Fraenkel replied 'Do you mean the inclusive or, or the exclusive or?'

Interestingly, in English at least (this may not apply in other languages), the professor's snippy logic was beaten by linguistics, as his question was not necessary.

Fraenkel's question distinguished the exclusive or (where something has to be one thing or the other but can't be both) from the inclusive (where it can be either or both). And had he received the question from the bus driver in writing, with a slightly different wording, he would have been justified in asking the question. 'Are you a German or a professor?' written down could be inclusive or exclusive. However there was that opening word. It would have been clearer had the driver said 'Which are you' - this would force the exclusive. But even 'What are you' implies the exclusive.

However, the question wasn't written down - and interestingly, in spoken English we distinguish the inclusive and exclusive or by inflection. So had the driver said 'Are you a German or a professor?' and meant it to be inclusive he would have kept the word 'professor' at a fairly balanced or a rising pitch. If he had meant it to be exclusive, he would have said 'professor' with a falling pitch.

It's not really language trumping logic, as I asked in the title, but rather the interesting point that a phrase, particularly a spoken phrase, can contain more information than that of the basic interpretation applied by Abraham Fraenkel.

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Murder by Candlelight - Ed. Cecily Gayford ***

Nothing seems to suit Christmas reading better than either ghost stories or Christmas-set novels. For some this means a fluffy romance in the snow, but for those of us with darker preferences, it's hard to beat a good Christmas murder. An annual event for me over the last few years has been getting the excellent series of classic murderous Christmas short stories pulled together by Cecily Gayford, starting with the 2016 Murder under the Christmas Tree . This featured seasonal output from the likes of Margery Allingham, Arthur Conan Doyle, Ellis Peters and Dorothy L. Sayers, laced with a few more modern authors such as Ian Rankin and Val McDermid, in some shiny Christmassy twisty tales. I actually thought while purchasing this year's addition 'Surely she is going to run out of classic stories soon' - and sadly, to a degree, Gayford has. The first half of Murder by Candlelight is up to the usual standard with some good seasonal tales from the likes of Catherine Aird, Car...

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...

Search This Blog