Anyone a logician?

This was posted in one of the threads on collusion:


"Teams do obviously indicate ex[licit cheating. Anyone who thinks teams don't imply cheating must be on a team."


The specific content of this post isn't what id like to focus on.

This is just a sample of the incredible logic that people present in their arguments.


Anyone- want to expand on this? Maybe David Sklansky would like to talk about this nice little piece of logic.


I love this stuff even more.

Are you implying that this is circular reasoning? I'm not so sure. There is an implied premise here. It's the same as saying:


1. No non-serial killers condone serial killing


2. Some people condone serial killing.


Therefore: Those people must be serial killers


If you accept the premises as true, the logic follows. The problem is not with the logic, but the lack of evidence to support the first premise.


I'm drunk right now, so I'll probably regret writing this in the morning...lol

I think it's more a matter of opinion than logic.


He says teams obviously indicate collusion, so when A, also B.


Then when a group C says: A -> not B, they must be A.


This is logically a totally different, not related statement to the first premise. So it can not be logically deducted. It's just a matter of opinion.


Logically would be something like: All teams collude (A=B)


Player 1 is on a team (C=B)

Conclusion: Player 1 colludes (C=A)


Note that is 2nd premise would be Player 1 is NOT on a team

and conclusion Player 1 does NOT collude

is false logic.


Regards