Hacker News Reader

> (The arrow functions iconically: there is an informal logical path from A to B. It does not denote formal implication.)

> In other words, how far has one to analyse a claim of the form 'from property A, B follows' before assenting to it depends on the agent.

Or just prove the implication instead of inventing 'informal logical paths'

View on HN

The "informal logical path" proves the informal implication, but what counts as a proof of this implication here can be agent dependent. If we talk about proving formal implication, then we have still the problem of deduction[1][2][3]. In short, natural language doesn't distinguish between "inference rules" and expressing this rule in a sentence and using it as a premiss. Which leads to an infinite regress, unless the agent just stops at some point, unlike the tortoise in Carroll's story.

[1] https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/IV.14.278 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Tortoise_Said_to_Achi... [3] https://www.jstor.org/stable/2253263

Reply on news.ycombinator.com