HFBoards If Tretiak is the greatest of all time
 Register FAQ Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
 Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
 The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

# If Tretiak is the greatest of all time

 03-04-2013, 09:16 PM #1 Tom Morris Registered User   Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Billings,MT Posts: 64 vCash: 500 If Tretiak is the greatest of all time Then, in theory shouldn't Myshkin his backup be in the top 20?
 03-04-2013, 09:23 PM #2 Epsilon #TeamRaccoon     Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Florence, SC Posts: 39,640 vCash: 500 "If Tretiak is the greatest of all time, then *insert sentence*" is always logically true statement, because the premise is false.
03-04-2013, 09:39 PM
#3
Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,389
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Epsilon "If Tretiak is the greatest of all time, then *insert sentence*" is always logically true statement, because the premise is false.
Not true:

"If Tretiak is the greatest of all time, then Patrick Roy is the greatest of all time is logically false.

03-04-2013, 09:42 PM
#4
Epsilon
#TeamRaccoon

Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 39,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by MadLuke Not true: "If Tretiak is the greatest of all time, then Patrick Roy is the greatest of all time is logically false.
Disagree. That is an "If A, then B" statement, where

A : "Tretiak is the greatest of all time"

B: "Patrick Roy is the greatest of all time"

If A is false, then the statement is logically true regardless of the truth value of B. That implication is only false if A is true (because in that case, given the statements involved, B would have to be false).

 03-04-2013, 09:45 PM #5 pdd Registered User   Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 5,576 vCash: 500 There is zero reason for Myshkin to automatically be top-20 if Tretiak is #1. That's like saying "Tim Thomas won the Vezina, so Tuukka Rask must be the best backup."
03-04-2013, 09:49 PM
#6
Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,389
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Epsilon Disagree. That is an "If A, then B" statement, where A : "Tretiak is the greatest of all time" B: "Patrick Roy is the greatest of all time" If A is false, then the statement is logically true regardless of the truth value of B. That implication is only false if A is true (because in that case, given the statements involved, B would have to be false).
I think your mistaking logical error with premise or factual error.

Logical error and the raisonning (the If then) part with the A and B implication and exclusivité, the validity of A and B does not matter.

if A than B when A and b are mutually exclusive by definition is a logical error.

Like if it is rainning fire every day on a planet X in the universe than it is never rainning fire on any planet in the universe.

is a logical error, the factual or bad premise of the fact that it is rainning fire is not relevant to the logical error.

It is like saying: If Rob Brown is the best goal scorer of all times, some argument made about Mario Lemieux playmaking ability are overdone by some, is logiquely correct, but the if would be simply false.

the If Rob Brown is the best goal scorer of all times than the Dow Jones would be at least over 20k points. Is logiquely incorrect, because the If and than word are used between untrue raisonning.

03-04-2013, 10:12 PM
#7
pdd
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by MadLuke I think your mistaking logical error with premise or factual error. Logical error and the raisonning (the If then) part with the A and B implication and exclusivité, the validity of A and B does not matter. if A than B when A and b are mutually exclusive by definition is a logical error. Like if it is rainning fire every day on a planet X in the universe than it is never rainning fire on any planet in the universe. is a logical error, the factual or bad premise of the fact that it is rainning fire is not relevant to the logical error. It is like saying: If Rob Brown is the best goal scorer of all times, some argument made about Mario Lemieux playmaking ability are overdone by some, is logiquely correct, but the if would be simply false. the If Rob Brown is the best goal scorer of all times than the Dow Jones would be at least over 20k points. Is logiquely incorrect, because the If and than word are used between untrue raisonning.
That was a good explanation, but I think moreso it needs to be highlighted that the two items can be true independent of each other.

The logical set up is like this:

Any of the following statements would be valid.
A is true, therefore B is also true.
A is false, and B is also false.
A is false, but B is true.

The only invalid statement would be:
A is true, but B is false.

Which, following the topic of this thread, would mean "Tretiak is the greatest goalie ever, but Myshkin is not a top-20 netminder."

03-04-2013, 10:22 PM
#8
Epsilon
#TeamRaccoon

Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 39,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by MadLuke I think your mistaking logical error with premise or factual error. Logical error and the raisonning (the If then) part with the A and B implication and exclusivité, the validity of A and B does not matter. if A than B when A and b are mutually exclusive by definition is a logical error. Like if it is rainning fire every day on a planet X in the universe than it is never rainning fire on any planet in the universe. is a logical error, the factual or bad premise of the fact that it is rainning fire is not relevant to the logical error. It is like saying: If Rob Brown is the best goal scorer of all times, some argument made about Mario Lemieux playmaking ability are overdone by some, is logiquely correct, but the if would be simply false. the If Rob Brown is the best goal scorer of all times than the Dow Jones would be at least over 20k points. Is logiquely incorrect, because the If and than word are used between untrue raisonning.
I think you're misunderstanding the point I'm making.

A and B being mutually exclusive doesn't preclude "If A, then B" from being a true statement. Consider writing it in the logically equivalent form "'not A' or B".

So "If Tretiak is the greatest goalie of all time then Roy is the greatest goalie of all time" is a true statement so long as Tretiak is not the greatest goalie of all time, in which case the premise A is false and therefore 'not A' is true. In this situation, the truth value of B does not matter.

03-04-2013, 11:26 PM
#9
Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,389
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Epsilon So "If Tretiak is the greatest goalie of all time then Roy is the greatest goalie of all time" is a true statement so long as Tretiak is not the greatest goalie of all time, in which case the premise A is false and therefore 'not A' is true. In this situation, the truth value of B does not matter.
The statement cannot be true, because if Tretiak is the greatest goaltender it is impossible for other goaltender to be.

Even if tretiak is not the greatest, if he is Roy cannot be.

 03-05-2013, 12:06 AM #10 seventieslord Moderator     Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Regina, SK Country: Posts: 26,132 vCash: 500 Roy is the best ever... therefore, 20th is Brian Hayward.
 03-05-2013, 05:30 AM #11 Johnny Engine Registered User   Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,713 vCash: 500 Clint Benedict is a top-10 goalie of all time, therefore King Clancy is at least in the top 50.
03-05-2013, 06:53 AM
#12
Epsilon
#TeamRaccoon

Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 39,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by MadLuke The statement cannot be true,
Check the truth table for logical implication "P implies Q". Also, construct the equivalent table for " 'not P' or Q".

Quote:
 because if Tretiak is the greatest goaltender it is impossible for other goaltender to be.
Yes, but if he's not (i.e. the premise is false), then the implication is automatically true.

Quote:
 Even if tretiak is not the greatest, if he is Roy cannot be.
You just posted a contradiction ("Tretiak is not the greatest" and "he is the greatest").

 03-05-2013, 07:02 AM #13 GuineaPig Registered User     Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Montréal Posts: 2,143 vCash: 500 If Bobby Orr is the greatest defenceman of all time, does that put Dallas Smith in the top 5?
 03-05-2013, 10:23 AM #14 Trebek Mod Supervisor     Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 2,941 vCash: 500 Regarding logic 101, Epsilon's right about this. Regarding Myshkin, that says more for Brian Hayward (thanks, 70s) and Steve Shields than it does about Myshkin.
 03-05-2013, 11:27 AM #15 Reds4Life Registered User     Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: The Czech Republic Country: Posts: 3,545 vCash: 500 Tretiak is barely top 30 as far as I am concerned.
 03-05-2013, 12:52 PM #16 Thesensation19*   Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 2,573 vCash: 500 Would have been sick to see Tretiak in a Montreal Jersey. The team was one of the best and with Tretiak they would have given the Isles and Oilers a run for their money. He was in the best shape for an athlete of any kind. His experience, his training, his will would have made hik an immediate vezina nominee. would have prob won a cup and maij reason for that cup. You can undervalue all you want of the non pro olynpics but I believe it was still a great form of competition, and lets not forget his successful runs at NHL teams of all kinds.
 03-05-2013, 01:19 PM #17 Psycho Papa Joe Porkchop Hoser     Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Cesspool, Ontario Country: Posts: 23,356 vCash: 500 Using an NHL backup is an improper analogy, since we are talking about a nation's best and second best goalies, not a club team's. Therefore, 'if Roy is the greatest ever, shouldn't Brodeur be top 20' is the comparable.
03-05-2013, 01:40 PM
#18
Global Moderator

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country:
Posts: 43,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Psycho Papa Joe Using an NHL backup is an improper analogy, since we are talking about a nation's best and second best goalies, not a club team's. Therefore, 'if Roy is the greatest ever, shouldn't Brodeur be top 20' is the comparable.
If Frank Brimsek is the 9th best of all-time, shouldn't Mike Karakas be top 40?

03-05-2013, 01:43 PM
#19
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser

Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cesspool, Ontario
Country:
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe If Frank Brimsek is the 9th best of all-time, shouldn't Mike Karakas be top 40?
Was Karakas the 2nd best during Brimsek's time? I don't think so, but I could be wrong.

03-05-2013, 01:52 PM
#20
Global Moderator

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country:
Posts: 43,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Psycho Papa Joe Was Karakas the 2nd best during Brimsek's time? I don't think so, but I could be wrong.
2nd best American, I'm pretty sure

03-05-2013, 02:01 PM
#21
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser

Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cesspool, Ontario
Country:
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe 2nd best American, I'm pretty sure
Oh. I was thinking more along the lines of nations that were really good at hockey during the time periods in question. When Myskin was the 2nd best goalie in Russia, Russia might well have had the best team in the world. He had to be damned good to be the 2nd best in a damned fine country at playing hockey, no?

PS, I don't think he's a top 20, but it does show how we over elevate the top Soviets and ignore the rest of the bunch. It's funny seeing Fetisov in the top 10 on some lists, and then nary another Russian until the 50's or 60's. Not really logical if you think about it, which IMO is why we should just ignore non-NHLers in these types of things.

 03-05-2013, 02:55 PM #22 ryanwb Registered User     Join Date: Jan 2013 Country: Posts: 863 vCash: 500 Why did that argument remind me of my computer sciences class so much...
 03-05-2013, 04:58 PM #23 reckoning Registered User     Join Date: Jan 2005 Country: Posts: 5,540 vCash: 500 How many years was Myshkin considered the #2 goalie in the U.S.S.R.? Was he at that level for a long stretch of time, or was it just a brief period from 79-80 which happened to coincide with the Challenge Cup and the Olympics where North Americans got to see him?
03-05-2013, 05:17 PM
#24
bluesfan94
#BackesforSelke

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St. Louis
Country:
Posts: 12,560
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Psycho Papa Joe Oh. I was thinking more along the lines of nations that were really good at hockey during the time periods in question. When Myskin was the 2nd best goalie in Russia, Russia might well have had the best team in the world. He had to be damned good to be the 2nd best in a damned fine country at playing hockey, no? PS, I don't think he's a top 20, but it does show how we over elevate the top Soviets and ignore the rest of the bunch. It's funny seeing Fetisov in the top 10 on some lists, and then nary another Russian until the 50's or 60's. Not really logical if you think about it, which IMO is why we should just ignore non-NHLers in these types of things.
Wouldn't that mean that Carey Price, as the presumed #1 on Team Canada now, ought to be top-whatever?

 03-05-2013, 06:06 PM #25 tjcurrie Registered User     Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Gibbons, Alberta Posts: 3,912 vCash: 500 Ed Belfour is the 7th best, so Roman Turek is the 27th best. So is Manny Fernandez. They're tied.

Forum Jump