Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
can someone explain to a layman/thicko (me) what necessity and sufficiency mean with regards to this?
to bowl well.
But bowling well is not sufficient for victory as New Zealand's batsmen would also have to bat well to chase down the target set.
Does that make sense?
What about a harder example?
For the universe to come into existence, "magic" could be a sufficient cause. What would the necessary cause be? a multiverse? a god?
Tim the Enchanterer, maybe?
"something without which the universe could not come into being"
good fucking luck with that one
Something that's "necessary" is just anything that needs to be present for X to happen, but doesn't necessarily in itself lead to X.
You could maybe answer yours if you accept the beliefs of certain religions to be true, but I'm not going there...
to win a test match it is necessary to score more runs within the (sufficient) timeframe (??).
I dont think those two words have the same meaning as they do normally, which is what is throwing me a bit.
Technically New Zealand could concede 700 runs and still win, but you kind of get the point I think...
then what you are saying is that if we bowl like shit, we will not win
whether that's right or wrong is not relevant to the meaning of the words
it's not actually different from the regular meaning.
I wouldn't be any better, mind.
if a condition is sufficient for X to occur, X WILL occur if that condition pertains
wow that might not be too helpful
for creaky to get high as fuck it is necessary for him to have some primo dank, bc without primo dank he cannot get high as fuck
but it is not sufficient for him to have some primo dank, as he also needs papers, a lighter, a place to escape the watchful eye of the man, etc
although the whole rigmarole of hiding in bushes is fun
and thus have got fatter than I need to be
Worth noting that is a condition is only sufficient, then X could potential occur without that condition pertaining.
If we say that "x is a necessary condition for y," we mean that if we don't have x, then we won't have y. Or put differently, without x, you won't have y. To say that x is a necessary condition for y does not mean that x guarantees y.
Some examples will help here.
Having gasoline in my car (I have a gasoline engine) is a necessary condition for my car to start. Without gasoline (x) my car (y) will not start. Of course, having gasoline in the car does not guarantee that my car will start. There are many other conditions needed for my car to start.
Having oxygen in the earth's atmosphere is a necessary condition for human life. Certainly, having oxygen will not guarantee human life. There are many other conditions needed for human life other than oxygen in the atmosphere.
Being 18 years of age is a necessary condition for being able to buy cigarettes legally in North Carolina. Of course, being 18 does not guarantee that a person will buy cigarettes. There are many other conditions that lead to a person buying cigarettes than being 18 years of age.
If we say that "x is a sufficient condition for y," then we mean that if we have x, we know that y must follow. In other words, x guarantees y.
Consider the following examples.
Earning a total of 950 points (95%) in this Critical Thinking class is a sufficient condition for earning a final grade of A. If you have 950 points for the course, then it must follow that you will have a final grade of A.
Pouring a gallon of freezing water on my sleeping daughter is sufficient to wake her up. If I pour the gallon of freezing water on her then its guaranteed that she will wake up.
Rain pouring from the sky is a sufficient condition for the ground to be wet.
Please note that in none of these example is the sufficient condition also a necessary condition.
For example, it is not necessary to earn 950 points to earn an A in this course. You can earn 920 points to earn an A. (We cannot say that if you do not have 950 points then you can't have an A.)
It is not necessary to pour a gallon of freezing water on my daughter to wake her up. (A wrecking ball against the wall will do it as well.)
Similiarly, it is not necessary for rain to be pouring from the sky for the ground to be wet. The sprinkler could be on as well.
not if, by pouring the water on her, you flood her mouth and lungs causing her to drown, or if the shock of it causes cardiac arrest.
not if/where there's, like, shelter.
Conclusion: sufficient conditions are never sufficient in and of themselves. Ergo, there is no such thing as a sufficient condition.
as freezing water produces ice, do they mean a gallon of ice, or (in UK money) around 4.2kg of ice. Moreover, was that ice frozen from a one gallon portion of water, for example, one frozen in a bucket, or do they mean a gallon of water, frozen into individual ice cubes and subsequently pours in ice cube form?
it is necessary for the site to work.
it is not sufficient as someone must first say something #problematic.
Fuck off, mate!
there can only be DiS beeves if the site works?
check who you're beeving with pal
We must be the beeveless generation.
in the very loosest sense of the word
I should have said
the meanings of the words 'necessary' and 'sufficient'?
Reminds me of the rule that "consideration must be sufficient but it need not be adequate" which my lecturer thought was a contradiction cause the two words mean the same thing BUT THEY DONT.
Though I think with "sufficient" most people aren't used to using it in quite that way?
Nothing like philosophy stuff like this to make you feel like you obviously always understood it once it clicks for you. It's odd. Remember this driving me nuts when I first came to it.
I heard some people don't understand the meaning of the phrase word-for-word either!
but I should have said "in regards to causation" earlier, which is the definition I was after really.
you must demonstrate sufficiency and necessity.
That a god existing is a necessary condition for the existence of the universe.
Nothing about sufficiency.
By that you are saying that a god existing is a necessary condition for the creation of the universe.
If a god were to exist, he would certainly create the universe.
So this is saying that a god existing is a sufficient condition for the creation of the universe. If we have x, then we are guaranteed to have y.
a few people need a narrative whereby a humanlike entity is the creator and in control
a logical proof that God either does or does not exist, I think you're going to struggle.
Erm, no offence.
I heard someone say in an argument that "magic" would be a "sufficient" cause to explain the existence of the universe, but that they would also need a "necessary" cause to prove cause and effect, just wondered what it meant.
Im off to wikipedia again, you shitheads are crap.
Is that they want a cause for the existence of the universe without which the universe could not exist.
Whether they were just driveling on about a big old bunch of shit depends on context, but I strongly suspect they were.
Happy to help!
when it comes to things that are essentially unknowable.
If I say all unicorns are pink, my friend has a unicorn, therefore his unicorn is pink, that's logically true. Doesn't mean it's actually "true" in the real world.
Logic doesn't tell you anything about the accuracy of the premises or reveal the underlying assumptions behind them.
you can use modal logic to "prove" things that are logically consistent within themselves, with no regards to the premises being true or not
Thats what you mean right?
Not logically true.
Truth has nothing to do with that unicorn business.
True and False are the standard outcomes in logic, hence me deliberately using the word twice in different contexts to show how it can be misleading at first glance... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_ponens
Thanks for clarifyng that unicorns might not exist though:
looks like someone thought it was necessary to piss in your chips this morning?
and I don't need to explain it to the likes of you, for it to be sufficient.
have fucked it up with my half-assed terms of reference
if it is sufficient, then it will be apparent.
Predefinition of what will be sufficient (i.e a list of conditions or needs) are normally inaccurate, there can always be undetermined requirements, deus-ex-machinas can always materialise
keep up man
it affects my coding too.....I often struggle because I cant code an unanswerable question rather than a condition.
I havnt't studied philosophy or logic in a formal manner with references to past logicians/philosophers, so Im probably all over the place....... apologies......, just treat me as an intelligent ignorant.
It is quite difficult for me to understand and follow all the nuances and themes/forms that you may all be familiar with, having studied philosophy at university
you can do it creaks
'why' but I can try harder, and I will....I just need positive encouragement like yours (I'm being sincere there actually)
as, although there may be specific and literal definitions in different contexts, there are also some dumb, punny, false connections that are all used to connect betwen ideas and words.
and trains of thought in populations have grown up, which must surely still cloud, or colour or direct the phrasing of objective philosophy......if only as a pragmatic method of getting ideas across to other people who are 'tainted'
Case A) I need to move a car a distance of one mile.
Case B) I need to move a car a distance of one mile and for the revolving of the wheels to record the milage acurately.
For Case B,
NECESSITY #1 - for the wheels to be able to revolve and for the wheel rotation/milage recorder system to be functioning correctly.
NECESSITY #2 - that the car travel with its brakes off one mile with its wheels in good contact with the ground (in non skidding state)
It is SUFFICIENT that the above two necessities are met, there is no necessity for petrol, or an engine or an mot. (it could travel the mile being driven by the wheels rotation being powered by something in the car (electric motor or petrol motor or rubber band) or it could be pushed, or it could roll downhill.
Sub CaSE - if the transmission from the engine to the wheels were broken, then a combination of pushing and rolling might be sufficient, it is not necessary to be pushed and it is not necessary to be rolled but the combined pushing rolling element must be sufficient, and this combo is in itself, then a necessity...........unless I introduce my 'deus ex machina' (well it will be to most people) whereby I erect a sail atop the car and catch the (luckily) prevailing wind.
As for case A....well the wheels dont need to turn.....helicopter lift.....ice all the way/pushed like a puck.....AA recovery van get you home service......capture and harness enough hummingbirds and get them to caryy it
and for some form of moving the car 1 mile to be present.......and to actually have the will to invoke the conditions necessary