“So let us drink to ensure that our desires coincide with our capabilities!” (Russian vs. Boolean algebra)
...
How does the heart express itself?
Other how to understand you?
Will he understand what you live?
The thought spoken is a lie.
...
Probably, many people know the poem of F. I. Tyutchev, an excerpt of which is given above. And the fact that the phrase “A thought spoken is a lie” has generated many of its philosophical interpretations.
One of the options for the interpretation of this phrase is that after a person voiced his thought with words, the other person will not understand these words exactly as the one who expressed it thought.
In this article, we will just encounter such a misunderstanding, we will try to determine where it comes from, and the most interesting ... find out if the masses are involved in this :)
Recently, a colleague of mine, shared his “discovery” of a certain secret meaning in the well-known phrase: “Let us drink, then, so that our desires coincide with our capabilities . ” He had not been noticed before in connection with the Masons and other custodians of secret knowledge, therefore it became interesting to me.
')
The essence was as follows:
From his point of view, according to the rules of the Russian language, the statement “Let's drink for the fact that our desires coincide with our capabilities ” has an unequivocal meaning (without any other interpretations), which is that if our desires currently exceed opportunity means we must limit desires. Or more generally: “desires” should be adjusted to “opportunities” .
Hidden from the public masses, the correct wording, from his point of view, should be:
“So let's drink to ensure that our capabilities coincide with our desires ”, which also, according to the rules of the Russian language, has an unambiguous meaning (without any other interpretations), which is that if our capabilities at the moment do not allow our desires, we must increase our capabilities. Or more generally: “opportunities” should be adjusted to “desires” .
Without really thinking for a long time, I immediately saw a logical error in his interpretation of the meaning of these two statements. But, he appealed to the fact that it is precisely the strict adherence to the rules of the Russian language that determines the unambiguous meaning of which he speaks.
Let's see who is who? :) But before further reading, I suggest you to reflect on this question yourself and determine your non-judgmental opinion.
First, let's find a logical error, and understand the reason for its occurrence.
Let us analyze the phrase “Let us drink to ensure that our desires coincide with our capabilities . ”
1. The phrase refers to the "future", i.e. the speaker expects (hopes, believes) that after he utters the phrase and drinks, there will be some kind of action that suggests that now the “desires” and the “possibilities” coincide.
2. The phrase in no way determines what specific action must be performed to achieve the coincidence of "desire" and "opportunity."
Let us analyze the phrase “Let us drink to ensure that our possibilities coincide with our desires .”
1. The phrase refers to the "future", i.e. the speaker expects (hopes, believes) that after he utters the phrase and drinks, there will be some kind of action that suggests that now the “possibilities” and the “desires” coincide.
2. The phrase does not in any way determine what specific action must be performed to achieve the coincidence of “possibility” and “desire”.
Total:
We see that from the rearrangement of the words “desires / possibilities” in the statement: “desires and possibilities coincide” - the meaning does not change. So, both phrases have exactly the same meaning.
Just in case I will give a clipping from the wiki dictionary:
match (Total prototypical meaning is to be the same.)
If we go to Boolean algebra and denote Desires (F), Possibilities (B), then if
== () => { == () != () != () } And both phrases will have the same logical meaning:
( ) && ( «» ) => == () What is the logical error and misunderstanding?
1. As we have already shown, the meaning of the phrase from the transposition of the words of desire / opportunity does not change.
2. The true meaning of the phrase in no way determines what specific action must be performed to achieve the coincidence of “possibility” and “desire”. What does this mean? This means that in order for “desires” and “possibilities” to equal, a certain magical event can do one of 5 and equally probable actions:
- Limit desires to the level of current capabilities.
- Limit opportunities to the level of current desires
- Increase desires to the level of current capabilities
- Increase opportunities to the level of current desires
- Simultaneously change both the level of current desires and the level of current opportunities (in any direction, but so that they coincide)
Update: added output that reveals the meaning of the article:
“Misunderstanding” arises due to the free-thinking of additional information by people, which is not contained in the original phrase. It is because of this that the meaning of the same phrase for two different people is different.
The one who correctly understood the meaning does not impose restrictions, which are not in this phrase.
The one who “thought out” the additional information to the phrase got its meaning, with the imposition of restrictions.
“Thinking over” specifically to the phrase: “Let us drink to ensure that our desires coincide with our capabilities!” - is the addition of additional information, which is absent from the text, so that it is necessary to change “desires” to match “desires” and “opportunities”.
“Thinking over” specifically to the phrase: “Let us drink to ensure that our capabilities coincide with our desires!” - is adding additional information, which is absent in the text, so that it is necessary to change “possibilities” to match “desires” and “opportunities”.
In order to “stop thinking” to cease to be “thought out”, it is necessary to change the original phrase - by adding additional information.
For example:
It is necessary to change A, so that A coincides with B.
It is necessary to change B so that A coincides with B.
It is necessary to change A and B, so that A coincides with B.
Without such additional information - “thinking out” and limiting the meaning of the phrase
"It is necessary that A coincides with B."
Only one of the three possible options is an error.
What can oppose Russian language against our, harmonous, logical conclusions?
My colleague did not bother to bring the rules of the Russian language on which he was based, appealing with the fact that a competent person should know them :) To my shame (or maybe vice versa), I don’t know such rules. But according to his statements in the sentence there is some subordinate connection, which puts one word to the main and the other dependent, which changes the meaning of the sentence when rearranging these words.
Therefore, I appeal to all Russian language specialists asking them to confirm or deny the existence of such a rule (which would change the meaning of the above two phrases due to the fact that the words “desires” and “possibilities” were interchanged in them).
Update2: Added arguments from comments for both points of view:
Arguments for changing meaning
If we start from the Russian language, in both sentences (in significant parts) there is a Noun (an independent part of speech, denoting an object or person and answering the question “who?” Or “what?”), A Glagol (an independent part of speech, which indicates a state or the action of the subject and answers the questions what to do? what to do?) and the Noun in the Instrumental case (the Word in the authoritative case answers the question who / what?).
Let us analyze option 1: “To make desires coincide with possibilities” —the desires (what? Noun) coincided (go to the state coincided — what will they do? —The verb), i.e. desires change their state; coincided (go to the state coincided - what will they do? - verb) with possibilities (what? - accusive case) - what will they do with what? Those. opportunities themselves will not change the state.
Let us analyze option 2: “So that the possibilities coincide with the desires” —the possibilities (what? —Noun) coincided (will pass into the state of coincidence — what will they do? —The verb), again, the possibility will be replaced by the state; coincided (go to the state coincided - what will they do? - verb) with desires (what? - accountable case) what will they do with desires? The desires themselves will not change the state.
Thus the state will change, the noun that stands before the verb.
Also in the sentences there is a dependence of one noun on the other through the preposition c. A sentence is a service part of speech, denoting a relationship between an object and a subject, expressing the syntactic dependence of nouns, pronouns, and numerals on other words in phrases and sentences. Prepositions, like all official words, cannot be used independently; they always refer to a noun (or a word used in the function of a noun).
And this denies their equivalence
Let us analyze option 1: “To make desires coincide with possibilities” —the desires (what? Noun) coincided (go to the state coincided — what will they do? —The verb), i.e. desires change their state; coincided (go to the state coincided - what will they do? - verb) with possibilities (what? - accusive case) - what will they do with what? Those. opportunities themselves will not change the state.
Let us analyze option 2: “So that the possibilities coincide with the desires” —the possibilities (what? —Noun) coincided (will pass into the state of coincidence — what will they do? —The verb), again, the possibility will be replaced by the state; coincided (go to the state coincided - what will they do? - verb) with desires (what? - accountable case) what will they do with desires? The desires themselves will not change the state.
Thus the state will change, the noun that stands before the verb.
Also in the sentences there is a dependence of one noun on the other through the preposition c. A sentence is a service part of speech, denoting a relationship between an object and a subject, expressing the syntactic dependence of nouns, pronouns, and numerals on other words in phrases and sentences. Prepositions, like all official words, cannot be used independently; they always refer to a noun (or a word used in the function of a noun).
And this denies their equivalence
Arguments for the fact that the meaning does not change
There are two main arguments.
1) The meaning of the two sentences below is the same (although the words are rearranged):
"It is required that the stone lay next to the paper."
"It is required that the paper lay next to the stone."
The meaning of these sentences from the transposition of words - does not change, as it lies in the fact that the objects "paper" and "stone" were next to each other . In these sentences, there is no information as to where the “paper” or “stone”, “what can be moved”, “what cannot be moved”, etc. are located. and the like., there is only one requirement - that they should be together, that is why the meaning of both sentences is the same. Those. it simply requires that the “stone and paper lie together” condition be fulfilled.
Accordingly, in this example it is shown that there are cases in the Russian language where the general meaning does not change when there is a permutation of the words in the sentence (from which noun stands first in the subject).
2) The verb "to coincide" means not an action, but a state that makes sense only for both the words "desire" and "possibility" at the same time.
1. Such an action as “coincide” does not exist.
2. There is only the state of "coincidence". Those. when we say that “A coincides with B”, it means that A and B are in a “coincidence” state.
3. The concept of "coincidence" is symmetrical.
"A is the same as B"
"B coincides with A"
These two phrases have one meaning that does not depend on what is in the first place in the sentence and is the subject, as well as on the position regarding the preposition "C" connecting two nouns and the notion of "coinciding".
4. If in the sentence “So let us drink to ensure that our desires coincide with our capabilities!” To put the question:
Desires what did you do? - coincided with the possibilities.
This can confuse those who subconsciously associate the verb “coincided” with the action, not the state. As a result, the answer for them will be:
“Desires” must perform the action “coincided” with “possibilities”.
But this answer is not correct, because actions "coincided" does not exist.
The correct answer is:
"Desires" and "opportunities" should fall into a state of "coincidence"
It is required to clarify separately - another interpretation that can be misleading:
“Desires” must change their state to a state of “coincidence” with “possibilities” .
or
“Desires” must change their state into a state of “possibilities” .
This interpretation is not correct:
The noun "desire" cannot have its own state of "coincidence", since, one by one, neither "desire" nor "opportunity" can go into the state of "coincidence", they can only be in this state together. Those. the verb “coincide” (meaning state) refers not to “desires”, but to “desires” and “possibilities” .
5. The way of “desires” getting into the “coincidence” state with “possibilities” is not specified in the sentence. And since the concept of "coincidence" is symmetrical, both desires and possibilities can change. Those. to get into a state of “coincidence” with “possibilities” - “desires” are not obliged to perform any actions (changes), for them “opportunities” can do it.
Total:
"It is required that the stone lay next to the paper."
"It is required that the paper lay next to the stone."
No matter how much we put in the first phrase the semantic emphasis on the word “stone”, highlighting it in a loud voice or underlining, etc ..., or in the second phrase on the word “paper”. MEANING - both phrases will be the same. And the meaning is that the stone and paper are in a state of "next to each other . " (in any way, because we do not know where the paper and the stone are, what can be moved and what cannot, etc.)
It is the same with our toast, in which it is required that “desires” and “possibilities” be in a state of “coincidence with each other” .
Therefore, the phrase:
So let us drink to ensure that our desires coincide with our capabilities!
So let us drink to ensure that our capabilities coincide with our desires!
So let us drink to ensure that our desires and our capabilities coincide!
- Have the same meaning.
1) The meaning of the two sentences below is the same (although the words are rearranged):
"It is required that the stone lay next to the paper."
"It is required that the paper lay next to the stone."
The meaning of these sentences from the transposition of words - does not change, as it lies in the fact that the objects "paper" and "stone" were next to each other . In these sentences, there is no information as to where the “paper” or “stone”, “what can be moved”, “what cannot be moved”, etc. are located. and the like., there is only one requirement - that they should be together, that is why the meaning of both sentences is the same. Those. it simply requires that the “stone and paper lie together” condition be fulfilled.
Accordingly, in this example it is shown that there are cases in the Russian language where the general meaning does not change when there is a permutation of the words in the sentence (from which noun stands first in the subject).
2) The verb "to coincide" means not an action, but a state that makes sense only for both the words "desire" and "possibility" at the same time.
1. Such an action as “coincide” does not exist.
2. There is only the state of "coincidence". Those. when we say that “A coincides with B”, it means that A and B are in a “coincidence” state.
3. The concept of "coincidence" is symmetrical.
"A is the same as B"
"B coincides with A"
These two phrases have one meaning that does not depend on what is in the first place in the sentence and is the subject, as well as on the position regarding the preposition "C" connecting two nouns and the notion of "coinciding".
4. If in the sentence “So let us drink to ensure that our desires coincide with our capabilities!” To put the question:
Desires what did you do? - coincided with the possibilities.
This can confuse those who subconsciously associate the verb “coincided” with the action, not the state. As a result, the answer for them will be:
“Desires” must perform the action “coincided” with “possibilities”.
But this answer is not correct, because actions "coincided" does not exist.
The correct answer is:
"Desires" and "opportunities" should fall into a state of "coincidence"
It is required to clarify separately - another interpretation that can be misleading:
“Desires” must change their state to a state of “coincidence” with “possibilities” .
or
“Desires” must change their state into a state of “possibilities” .
This interpretation is not correct:
The noun "desire" cannot have its own state of "coincidence", since, one by one, neither "desire" nor "opportunity" can go into the state of "coincidence", they can only be in this state together. Those. the verb “coincide” (meaning state) refers not to “desires”, but to “desires” and “possibilities” .
5. The way of “desires” getting into the “coincidence” state with “possibilities” is not specified in the sentence. And since the concept of "coincidence" is symmetrical, both desires and possibilities can change. Those. to get into a state of “coincidence” with “possibilities” - “desires” are not obliged to perform any actions (changes), for them “opportunities” can do it.
Total:
"It is required that the stone lay next to the paper."
"It is required that the paper lay next to the stone."
No matter how much we put in the first phrase the semantic emphasis on the word “stone”, highlighting it in a loud voice or underlining, etc ..., or in the second phrase on the word “paper”. MEANING - both phrases will be the same. And the meaning is that the stone and paper are in a state of "next to each other . " (in any way, because we do not know where the paper and the stone are, what can be moved and what cannot, etc.)
It is the same with our toast, in which it is required that “desires” and “possibilities” be in a state of “coincidence with each other” .
Therefore, the phrase:
So let us drink to ensure that our desires coincide with our capabilities!
So let us drink to ensure that our capabilities coincide with our desires!
So let us drink to ensure that our desires and our capabilities coincide!
- Have the same meaning.
And I also invite everyone to participate in the voting.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/373277/
All Articles