There seems to be a contradiction in the deduction that M&S must always go together. In the video, the first rule and contrapositive written out are M(g) -> P(g) and S(g) with a contrapositive of P(t) or (S(t) -> M(t). The second rule and contrapositive are M(t) -> S(t) and S(g) -> M(g). The video uses this to conclude that M&S always go together. However, doesn't this mean that the first contrapositive must be incorrect? Because based on the first contrapositive, we could have P(t) and S(g) that is sufficient for M(t); however, the second contrapositive tells us that S9G0 is sufficient for M(g). So, you can see how these two contrapositives are at odds. So, I'm wondering if there was a mistake in writing these rules or how to use them given that they don't seem to match with each other logically.
Reply
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
We are able to know that M and S go together since there are only two possibilities about where M could go, and in each case, S goes in the same game as M.
Our rules and contrapositives are as follows.
If Mg - Pg and Sg If St - Mt If Pt - Mt
If Mt - St If Sg- Mg
This means that if Pt, then Mt, and if Mt, then St. Therefore, it is impossible to have Pt and Sg.
