pentejr: It is true that we use words in everyday English in ways different from their strict logical meaning.

Yes, one of the most famous is the following answer to the above question that can have 2 contradictory meanings!
Pesron-A: "Don't you like it?"
Person-B: "No."

So does Person-B likes it......? (No need to answer)
These problems and at general all bad things and misunderstandings occur due to the fact that people don't use a pure, strict Mathematical way of describing things and with pure deductive logic.....


First, it seems to me that the determining factor as to how the game should be set up should not be which way is easier on beginners but which way is correct according to the rules of the game. My understanding of the rules of backgammon is that PlayBunny is correct, though admittedly, I am not an expert on the game.

Your understanding of the rules of backgammon???? What rules do you have in mind?

The problem is that unlike what happens with Chess where there is an international organization(FIDE) that makes all the official rules and everyone follows them, at Backgammon there is no such thing! So anyone can follow his own rules....There is not a better resigning option or a worse one. This is just subjective....At Chess of course is again subjective but since there is a standard international orgnization, we agree to follow it and problem is solved!

Czuch Chuckers: Ok, I'm going to be nice here. Not "Nope," yep. Really. Trust me. I'm finishing a PH.D. in philosophy, and I have taken and taught logic. I wouldn't steer you wrong here. It is true that we use words in everyday English in ways different from their strict logical meaning. It is true that there is nothing wrong with that. So while there is no fact of the matter regarding these "colloquial" usages of phrases like "a piece," there is a fact of the matter regarding the logical meaning of those words when used in combination.

I'll discuss the resignation point further because it's interesting. I won't discuss this any further because it isn't.

pentejr: I agree, and good point.

Wow, this board is funny. It goes three weeks with nothing, then boom! Almost eighty message in two days. Anyway, I have two points on the resignation business.

First, it seems to me that the determining factor as to how the game should be set up should not be which way is easier on beginners but which way is correct according to the rules of the game. My understanding of the rules of backgammon is that PlayBunny is correct, though admittedly, I am not an expert on the game. Those of you who have played organized OTB backgammon might want to clue us in here.

However, a nasty glitch, one that can exploit all players (not just beginners) unfairly when this rule is implemented in online play, needs to be avoided if we convince Fencer to go to this system. Currently, offering a double counts as a move for the purposes of timing out, etc. Offering a resignation cannot count as a move. If it does, then you would never have to give up a gammon/backgammon on any game that has only a per move (as opposed to a total game) time limit--just offer to resign for single stakes over and over again. My wife had this happen to her on Yahoo backgammon the other day.

pentejr: Nope.

playBunny: In the English vernacular, everyday usage, "a piece" (to return to the original example) is ambiguous: it could mean "one and only one," or it could mean "at least one." In logic, the usage is not ambiguous--"a piece" would refer to the existential quantifier, which is to say, it would mean "at least one piece," always and forever, Amen.

Andersp: Oh Anders.... such an intillectual one... ;

sigh

I'm beering off. Cheers.

alanback: I can't bear to read much more of this. ;-)

alanback:Ball or Bawl

skipinnz: That really has no bearing on the question.

Da Bears!!

alanback: Is that a Black , Brown or Sun Bear

skipinnz: What do you have against bears?

Do you "Bear off" or do you "Bare off" in a game of Backgammon, cause I reckon some of you take life far to seriously. LOL

I wish these pencils had an eraser!

Czuch Chuckers: I think it's rather arrogant for you to presume to tell me what I can or cannot be indifferent to. Moreover, the assertion is ridiculous on its face. Anyway, I'm bored with this discussion, and won't participate further.

alanback: You would never be indifferent to the amount of pencils that you want. You would never want less than one pencil if you asked for one. And if you wanted more than one pencil you would always be more specific than to ask to borrow a pencil.
Thad: "have you ever lost a game of backgammon?" is no different. If you want to know more specifically then you would always ask a more specific question.

Thad: It all depends on the context
So there is no exact meaning of "i have a pencil".
And it should be used with words like "exactly" or "at least"....

Nice to discover another part of completely useless statements, as they are all the adjectives in English and also in Greek language too.....

Pythagoras: Sometimes you don't want a specific number of pencils; you just want to be able to write something down. That's when you ask for "a pencil". Whether I give you one pencil or a box, you got what you wanted and what you asked for.

It all depends on the context. Sometimes 'a' can mean exactly one, for example, if I say, "You can join the backgammon league if you pay a membership fee" clearly 'a' means one, but if I say, "Have you ever lost a game of backgammon?" in this instance 'a' means one or more.

Czuch Chuckers: But you may still say "a pencil" if you are indifferent to the number of pencils you receive; that is, if you want at least one pencil. Of course, if one pencil will not do, you won't say "a pencil", you will specify the number that you need. "A pencil" is to be used only when you want exactly one, OR are indifferent to the number.

alanback: As you yourself said, it's indefinite; it doesn't imply "one" or more than one.

I think in that case since it is indefinite it implies the exact same thing you said it doesn't imply! Since it is indefinite(and obviously not zero) it means one exactly pencil, or 2 exactly pencils, or...., or an infinite number of pencils.

alanback: If want more than one or less than one pencil I will NOT say "may I borrow a pencil"

It is because it's not off topic at all as we obviously discuss about Backgammon....

Pythagoras: I don't see any inconsistency. "A pencil" means at least one pencil; and that's the farthest off topic I've been allowed to be in quite a while ;-)

alanback: So what you said is not correct. That means "a pencil" is NOT the opposite of "no pencil".....
Now things are clear! Please not make it complicated again.....

Czuch Chuckers: As you yourself said, it's indefinite; it doesn't imply "one" or more than one.

If I have 10 pncils on my desk and you ask me if you may borrow a pencil and I reply yes you ma borrow a pencil, I will be surprised if you take more than one or less than one pencil from my desk top.

alanback: Its a question that only requires a yes or no answer. You could have no objection if I gave you no pencil as well. If you want or expect more than one you wouldnt ask for a pencil you would ask for a specifc amount.

Czuch Chuckers: I disagree. If I ask you for a pencil, I have no objection to receiving two or more!

grenv: In context it doesnt mean more than one pencil nor less than one pencil.

Czuch Chuckers: It's indefinite, but in context it could mean a single thing.

Czuch Chuckers: Oh no! Don't destroy me again! Please decide how are you using your own language....

alanback: "may I borrow a pencil" implies that you want "one" pencil....

Since "a pencil" is the opposite of "no pencil" then "i want/have a pencil" = "i want/have at least a pencil".....

Odd to me, but you English speakers know better....

playBunny: "a" is called the indefinite article for a reason -- "a pencil" is the opposite of "no pencil" and implies nothing at all as to number. Of course context is still important. In the context of pencils the essence of the question is whether one has the tools necessary to write something down; number is not significant. In some cases, the expectation is that there will be either exactly one or none of the specified item, and if more than one are present, a simple affirmative could be misleading. Thus, a bigamist, when asked "Do you have a wife?", should answer: "Yes, I have two."

If you want to elicit information about the number of pencils a person has, "Do you have a pencil?" is the wrong question. It would be better to ask: "How many pencils do you have?", "Do you have an extra pencil?", "May I borrow a pencil?" etc.

playBunny:

BUT it's a yes/no question in the context you used it, therefore the answer is "yes". I don't think it's ambiguous (except maybe to a lawyer).

Also I've never heard anyone answer No, I have three or anything like that, unless they were trying to be funny.

Pythagoras:



Q: Do you have a pencil?
A: No, I've got three.

Q: Do you have a pencil?
A: Yes, I've got three. Which colour would you like?

It's like you said - open to interpretation.

frolind: strange...it works for me.

Kipling: I don't know. Just did some experiencing now. But it's good to have if you want to put up a link to a brainking page without changing the visitors language, because the url also contains information about which language to display the site in. And the part of the url which is inserted will vary depending on the viewers language settings. But it will not work when you also write the start of the url (exluding the http part).

grenv:
OK if you all English-language-people have learnt that the use of "a" makes the statement: "does he have a pencil?" the same with "does he have at least a pencil?" then i didn't know that or seen this before.....

But really it's a matter of definition again.
It is not obvious for me to define the:
"I have a pencil."
as:
"I have at least a pencil."
instead of the more logical:
"I have exactly one pencil."

frolind: is this new? Brainking navigation did not used to require the http://

grenv: you do need to be gammoned in order to be backgammoned.

Kipling: Which is why the http://brainking.etc is inserted, making the url invalid.

BIG BAD WOLF: if you use the edit button on my post...you'll see there is no http://

Pythagoras: You have to be kidding me? Math?

I have a math degree as it turns out, but this is a question of the english language.

If you have borne of many checkers it is also true that you have borne off a checker. If I ask "Has player x has borne off a checker?" the answer to that question doesn't switch to being "No" just because I bear off a second!!!

If you want to ask about one checker you have to use the word "one". i.e. "Have you borne off one checker?". This is probably ambiguous enough to warrant the word exactly being inserted.

The use of "Else" is simple to understand and needn't be complicated by the use of set theory in my opinion. In this case there is no intersection of sets, you can't be gammoned and backgammoned at the same time.

Kipling: Your link does not work for me - for some reason it is inserting an extra http://brainking.com/en/ before it - giving me an invalid link.

BIG BAD WOLF: (my link works)
and there is nothing regarding resignation in the cube rules.
Thanks to everyone for clearing this up for me.