There exists only one opposite(from lack of a better word)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Imparcticle
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of opposites in logic and language, particularly whether there can be multiple opposites for a single statement or entity. Participants explore the implications of formal logic, definitions of contradictory and contrary statements, and the vagueness of the term "opposite." The scope includes theoretical reasoning and conceptual clarification.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question how it can be established that there is only one opposite to a statement, suggesting the possibility of multiple opposites.
  • Others reference the principle of identity and formal logic, which may imply a single opposite, but question the sufficiency of these rules.
  • One participant argues that the definition of "opposite" inherently limits it to one counterpart, using examples from particle physics to illustrate the complexity of opposites in different contexts.
  • Definitions of contradictory and contrary statements are provided, with some participants noting that while contradictory statements have one opposite, contrary statements can have multiple opposites.
  • There is a discussion about the relationship between formal logic and the broader, more flexible use of "opposite" in everyday language.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the provability of the relationship between a statement and its opposite, questioning what constitutes a proof in this context.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether there can be multiple opposites for a single statement. While some lean towards the idea that formal logic supports a single opposite, others argue for the vagueness and flexibility of the term "opposite," indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the ambiguity of the term "opposite" and the dependence on definitions from formal logic versus everyday language. The discussion also highlights the unresolved nature of proving relationships in logic.

Imparcticle
Messages
572
Reaction score
4
How do we know that there exists only one thing that is opposite to another thing?
For example, if you are composing an indirect proof, you would take the "then" statement and use its opposite to prove that the "if" statement is in fact true. But, what if there is a case where there are multiple statements that are opposite to one statement?

How do we know there isn't such a case? How do you prove there is only one opposite to something?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
According to the principle of identity, at least, if you are going to stick to the rules of formal logic.
 
Why do the formal rules of logic (are there informal rules?) only allow for one opposite? IF you believe this is true, how would you prove it?
 
I have never come across a case where there are multiple statements that are opposite to one statement.

But the way I see it is you can only have one opposite because of the definition of the word opposite itself.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=opposite

"Being the other of two complementary or mutually exclusive things"

Surely if you have an object A and you say an object B is opposite to A. But you also have an object C that is opposite to A, it would be understood that C is the same as B.

The only way I see of having two or more opposites to one thing is when you deal with more than one properties of that something. For instance a proton is the opposite of the anti-proton in terms of the type of matter but a proton's other opposite could also be the electron in terms of charge.

If you want the proton to have two opposites in terms of charge, it's not possible because anything opposite to +1 is -1. If anything else was opposite to +1, that would make it equal to -1
 
contradictory vs. contrary?

Imparcticle said:
How do we know that there exists only one thing that is opposite to another thing?
For example, if you are composing an indirect proof, you would take the "then" statement and use its opposite to prove that the "if" statement is in fact true. But, what if there is a case where there are multiple statements that are opposite to one statement?
I think "opposite" is a bit vague. In formal logic, there are two terms, one of which may capture what you are looking for. Here are their definitions:
contradictory: Two statements are contradictory if they cannot both be true together, and cannot both be false together. An example is "this is red" and "this is not red".

contrary: Two statements are contrary if they cannot both be true together, but can both be false together. An example is "this is red", "this is blue", and "this is green".​
As you can see, contradictory statements divide the universe into two parts (A and not-A), so a given statement has but one contradictory. But a statement can have many contraries.
 
Imparcticle said:
Why do the formal rules of logic (are there informal rules?) only allow for one opposite? IF you believe this is true, how would you prove it?
In formal logic, the opposite of (X) is (not X). On the other hand, the range of meaning that can be attached to the English word "opposite" is not restricted to this. Thus, there are situations which, as described in English, allow a concept to have several opposites. However, if (X) is a statement in English for which (A), (B), and (C) are plausible opposites, in most cases (not X) will be a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for (A), (B), or (C). (And other cases are similarly founded on the gap between standard usage and the definitions used by formal logic.)

(Note: This is more or less the same thing that Doc Al is saying. I was just taking "opposite" to always correspond to "contradictory"--as defined above--when used in the context of formal logic.)
 
Last edited:
How do we know that there exists only one thing that is opposite to another thing?

well first ask yourself how a 'normal' human being can ultimately 'see' his death;is that written in doctors books coz i wouldn't mind for a chek.
 
I think "opposite" is a bit vague. In formal logic, there are two terms, one of which may capture what you are looking for. Here are their definitions:
contradictory: Two statements are contradictory if they cannot both be true together, and cannot both be false together. An example is "this is red" and "this is not red".

contrary: Two statements are contrary if they cannot both be true together, but can both be false together. An example is "this is red", "this is blue", and "this is green".
As you can see, contradictory statements divide the universe into two parts (A and not-A), so a given statement has but one contradictory. But a statement can have many contraries.

THANK YOU for that, Doc Al.
But is it provable? Can you give a formal proof proving that (A) is the opposite of (not A)?
 
Imparcticle said:
But is it provable? Can you give a formal proof proving that (A) is the opposite of (not A)?
And what would constitute a "proof" of that? Using what? Logic? :rolleyes:

That the universe is divided into A and not-A is an axiom of standard logic. (There are others, I'm told.)
 
  • #10
I see, I see. Definitions can't be proven...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
6K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K