Notes Dictated to G.E. Moore in Norway: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 134: Line 134:


That, when a certain rule is given, a symbol is tautological ''shews'' a logical truth.
That, when a certain rule is given, a symbol is tautological ''shews'' a logical truth.
[[File:Notes Dictated to G.E. Moore in Norway schema corrected.png|300px|center|link=]]
This symbol might be interpreted either as a tautology or a contradiction.<ref>The diagram originally drawn by Moore looked like this:


[[File:Notes Dictated to G.E. Moore in Norway schema.png|300px|center|link=]]
[[File:Notes Dictated to G.E. Moore in Norway schema.png|300px|center|link=]]


This symbol might be interpreted either as a tautology or a contradiction.
In the truth table notation (where the combinations of the truth values of individual propositions are displayed by means of a table and the two poles are indicated by “T” and “F” instead of “a” and “b” respectively) the equivalent of that diagram is as follows:
 
{| class="wikitable" style="margin: 2em auto; text-align: center;"
! style="width: 4em;" |''p''
! style="width: 4em;" |''p''
! style="width: 4em;" |{{nowrap|''p'' ≡ ~(~''p'')}}
|-
|T
|T
|T
|-
|T
|F
|T
|-
|F
|T
|F
|-
|F
|F
|T
|}
 
This, however, does not correspond to the truth table of {{nowrap|''p'' ≡ ~(~''p'')}}, which is instead as follows:
 
{| class="wikitable" style="margin: 2em auto; text-align: center;"
! style="width: 4em;" |''p''
! style="width: 4em;" |''p''
! style="width: 4em;" |{{nowrap|''p'' ≡ ~(~''p'')}}
|-
|T
|T
|T
|-
|T
|F
|F
|-
|F
|V
|F
|-
|F
|F
|T
|}
 
The paper edition this digital edition is based upon faithfully reproduced Moore’s drawing. In this digital edition, the original diagram was replaced by a corrected version which corresponds to this truth table.
 
See Michael A.R. Biggs. “Editing Wittgenstein’s Notes on Logic. Vol. 1.” ''Working Papers from the Wittgenstein Archives at the University of Bergen'', no. 11, 1996, § 1.8.</ref>


In settling that it is to be interpreted as a tautology and not as a contradiction, I am not assigning a ''meaning'' to a and b; i.e. saying that they symbolize different things but in the same way. What I am doing is to say that the way in which the a-pole is connected with the whole symbol symbolizes in a ''different way'' from that in which it would symbolize if the symbol were interpreted as a contradiction. And I add the scratches a and b merely in order to shew in which ways the connexion is symbolizing, so that it may be evident that wherever the same scratch occurs in the corresponding place in another symbol, there also the connexion is symbolizing in the same way.
In settling that it is to be interpreted as a tautology and not as a contradiction, I am not assigning a ''meaning'' to a and b; i.e. saying that they symbolize different things but in the same way. What I am doing is to say that the way in which the a-pole is connected with the whole symbol symbolizes in a ''different way'' from that in which it would symbolize if the symbol were interpreted as a contradiction. And I add the scratches a and b merely in order to shew in which ways the connexion is symbolizing, so that it may be evident that wherever the same scratch occurs in the corresponding place in another symbol, there also the connexion is symbolizing in the same way.
Line 196: Line 250:


The relation of "I believe p" to "p" can be compared to the relation of '"p" says (besagt) p' to p: it is just as impossible that ''I'' should be a simple as that "p" should be. <!--[''Cf''. 5.542.]-->
The relation of "I believe p" to "p" can be compared to the relation of '"p" says (besagt) p' to p: it is just as impossible that ''I'' should be a simple as that "p" should be. <!--[''Cf''. 5.542.]-->
{{references}}


[[Category:Original texts]]
[[Category:Original texts]]