哈罗。我又来了。这次是关于PAUL GRICE的问题。
Grice's Paradox
In his book Studies in the Way of Words, he presents what he calls "Grice's Paradox".[4] In it, he supposes that two chess players, Yog and Zog, play 100 games under the following conditions:
(1) Yog is white nine of ten times.
(2) There are no draws.
And the results are:
(1) Yog, when white, won 80 of 90 games.
(2) Yog, when black, lost ten of ten games.
This implies that:
(i) 8/9 times, if Yog was white, Yog won.
(ii) 1/2 of the time, if Yog lost, Yog was black.
(iii) 9/10 times, either Yog wasn't white or he won.
But by contraposition and conditional disjunction:
([a] from [ii]) If Yog was white, then 1/2 of the time Yog won.
([b] from [iii]) 9/10 times, if Yog was white, then he won.
Both (a) and (b) contradict (i).
我想知道这个悖论是为了说明什*么。
从1/2 of the time, if Yog lost, Yog was black.推到If Yog was white, then 1/2 of the time Yog won.我觉得这个1/2有点问题。
下面是我照的一段评论。我也不是很明白。
The error leading to the paradox is, I think, that of too closely identifying what is said or asserted by an utterance with the meaning (or semantic content) of the sentence uttered.
I think in the first 1/2,the total refers to all the times he lost not times of the whole games.So it can not be used by the contraposition.It does not meet the requirements and conditions.
这是我昨晚给老师写的信，不过他还没回我。我所不明白的是，他为什*么要用这个方法，他用这个例子想说明什*么？这才是最重要的。
