[math-fun] Logic in (old) pop music
Did anyone else notice, way back when, that the Beatles' affirmatory-sounding proclamation "There's nothing you can do that can't be done" is actually a tautology? Or that the Monkees' claim that "We're too busy singing to put anybody down", by slyly jabbing at the band's detractors, *was* in fact putting them down? Just wondering... Jim Propp
Or that the Monkees' claim that "We're too busy singing to put anybody down", by slyly jabbing at the band's detractors, *was* in fact putting them down?
Does that strictly follow, though? They could have also sung, "We're too busy singing to being washing dishes", but that wouldn't mean that they would be washing dishes if they weren't singing, would it? On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 12:47 PM, James Propp <jamespropp@gmail.com> wrote:
Did anyone else notice, way back when, that the Beatles' affirmatory-sounding proclamation "There's nothing you can do that can't be done" is actually a tautology?
Or that the Monkees' claim that "We're too busy singing to put anybody down", by slyly jabbing at the band's detractors, *was* in fact putting them down?
Just wondering...
Jim Propp _______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:47 PM, James Propp <jamespropp@gmail.com> wrote:
Did anyone else notice, way back when, that the Beatles' affirmatory-sounding proclamation "There's nothing you can do that can't be done" is actually a tautology?
Or that the Monkees' claim that "We're too busy singing to put anybody down", by slyly jabbing at the band's detractors, *was* in fact putting them down?
Or that the two halves of the statement in the Turtles' "Happy Together" are saying the exact same thing, rather than the complementary things they may seem to say at first glance? "The only one for me is you, and you for me" Andy
Dropping the "old" part, here's Colbert's analysis of "you're beautiful because you don't know you're beautiful". http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/9wdqkq/the-2012-people-s-party-congres... On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Andy Latto <andy.latto@pobox.com> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:47 PM, James Propp <jamespropp@gmail.com> wrote:
Did anyone else notice, way back when, that the Beatles' affirmatory-sounding proclamation "There's nothing you can do that can't be done" is actually a tautology?
Or that the Monkees' claim that "We're too busy singing to put anybody down", by slyly jabbing at the band's detractors, *was* in fact putting them down?
Or that the two halves of the statement in the Turtles' "Happy Together" are saying the exact same thing, rather than the complementary things they may seem to say at first glance?
"The only one for me is you, and you for me"
Andy
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
-- Mike Stay - metaweta@gmail.com http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~mike http://reperiendi.wordpress.com
Thanks! This brings to mind the song "You Are So Beautiful (To Me)", in which the singer, by explicitly bracketing his own perceptions as subjective rather than objective, undermines the very woo he is pitching. For, if his love-object were so beautiful to him, would he not be so overwhelmed by admiration as to be unable to calmly compare said love-object to societal canons of beauty? Jim Propp On Tuesday, October 7, 2014, Mike Stay <metaweta@gmail.com> wrote:
Dropping the "old" part, here's Colbert's analysis of "you're beautiful because you don't know you're beautiful".
http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/9wdqkq/the-2012-people-s-party-congres...
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Andy Latto <andy.latto@pobox.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:47 PM, James Propp <jamespropp@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
Did anyone else notice, way back when, that the Beatles' affirmatory-sounding proclamation "There's nothing you can do that can't be done" is actually a tautology?
Or that the Monkees' claim that "We're too busy singing to put anybody down", by slyly jabbing at the band's detractors, *was* in fact putting them down?
Or that the two halves of the statement in the Turtles' "Happy Together" are saying the exact same thing, rather than the complementary things they may seem to say at first glance?
"The only one for me is you, and you for me"
Andy
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com <javascript:;> https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
-- Mike Stay - metaweta@gmail.com <javascript:;> http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~mike http://reperiendi.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com <javascript:;> https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
Andy may be luckier in love than some other people, but in my experience those two halves are not necessarily synonymous. --Dan On Oct 7, 2014, at 12:26 PM, Andy Latto <andy.latto@pobox.com> wrote:
Or that the two halves of the statement in the Turtles' "Happy Together" are saying the exact same thing, rather than the complementary things they may seem to say at first glance?
"The only one for me is you, and you for me"
On 07/10/2014 22:25, Dan Asimov wrote:
Andy may be luckier in love than some other people, but in my experience those two halves are not necessarily synonymous. ...
[Andy Latto:]
Or that the two halves of the statement in the Turtles' "Happy Together" are saying the exact same thing, rather than the complementary things they may seem to say at first glance?
"The only one for me is you, and you for me"
They look pretty damn synonymous to me. The only one for me is you, and you for me = The only one for me is you, AND the only one is you for me = The only one for me is you, AND the only one for me is you. -- g
You and Jim are absolutely right -- I missed that. (I carelessly thought I was reading ". . . me for you . . . and you for me.") --Dan On Oct 7, 2014, at 2:29 PM, Gareth McCaughan <gareth.mccaughan@pobox.com> wrote:
On 07/10/2014 22:25, Dan Asimov wrote:
Andy may be luckier in love than some other people, but in my experience those two halves are not necessarily synonymous. ...
[Andy Latto:]
Or that the two halves of the statement in the Turtles' "Happy Together" are saying the exact same thing, rather than the complementary things they may seem to say at first glance?
"The only one for me is you, and you for me"
They look pretty damn synonymous to me.
The only one for me is you, and you for me
= The only one for me is you, AND the only one is you for me
= The only one for me is you, AND the only one for me is you.
-- g
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
There's another old pop song (by Clint Black) that includes the line "Wherever you go, there you are." --Dan On Oct 7, 2014, at 10:47 AM, James Propp <jamespropp@gmail.com> wrote:
Did anyone else notice, way back when, that the Beatles' affirmatory-sounding proclamation "There's nothing you can do that can't be done" is actually a tautology?
Or that the Monkees' claim that "We're too busy singing to put anybody down", by slyly jabbing at the band's detractors, *was* in fact putting them down?
Just wondering...
Jim Propp _______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
participants (6)
-
Andy Latto -
Dan Asimov -
Gareth McCaughan -
James Propp -
Mike Stay -
Paul Reiners