5 ms·

Not sure what you're trying to accomplish in this comment, but you're wrong anyways. This is an example of contradiction (~(P/\~P)), not excluded middle (P\/~P)

Not sure what you're trying to accomplish in this comment, but you're wrong anyways. This is an example of contradiction (~(P/\~P)), not excluded middle (P\/~P)..

peteretep 10y ago
Go on then kiddo, explain how in this context they differ. I'll Paypal you $5 if your answer is both coherent and correct, and there's any evidence at all that you understand the difference in this context.
- belovedeagle 10y ago
  I'm at a loss as to how I could successfully explain the difference to someone who is clearly full of shit and doesn't himself understand the difference. There's really nothing to explain: You quoted a contradiction. You then typed the non sequitur "law of excluded middle"; I take it we were supposed to infer that the quote is false because of excluded middle. However, the quote is false because it is a contradiction, not because of excluded middle. I can alter the quote so it is false because of excluded middle: > did not demand > the request is currently not "optional" (Feel free to send BTC to 1L941R7SdDRGrVhgckCLABWuabQrniZTtP.)
  - peteretep 10y ago
    > I'm at a loss Shocker. > This is an example of > contradiction (~(P/\~P)), > not excluded middle (P\/~P) However: ~(P/\~P) <=> De Morgan's (~P\/~~P) <=> double negation (~P\/P) <=> \/ is commutative (P\/~P) Is there a difference between the two? Of course. Is producing notation that can be shown to be equivalent any way to conduct the argument? No, and it was also a clue you wouldn't know how to explain the difference between the two. > I take it we were > supposed to infer > that You can take whatever you like from it. The underlying English itself is ambiguous - you can indeed demand something that's optional - so there's not actually a contradiction there. It's more interesting then to draw attention to the fact that a third alternative to the truth value of the statement may be upcoming - perhaps the information will remain optional, unless of course you want any chance at all of your application succeeding? Tertium non datur, yet.
  - dang 10y ago
    Personal attacks are not welcome on HN. We ban accounts that post like this, so please don't post like this again. Comments here need to be civil and substantive. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

Not sure what you're trying to accomplish in this comment, but you're wrong anyways. This is an example of contradiction (~(P/\~P)), not excluded middle (P\/~P)..

peteretep 10y ago

Go on then kiddo, explain how in this context they differ. I'll Paypal you $5 if your answer is both coherent and correct, and there's any evidence at all that you understand the difference in this context.

belovedeagle 10y ago
I'm at a loss as to how I could successfully explain the difference to someone who is clearly full of shit and doesn't himself understand the difference. There's really nothing to explain: You quoted a contradiction. You then typed the non sequitur "law of excluded middle"; I take it we were supposed to infer that the quote is false because of excluded middle. However, the quote is false because it is a contradiction, not because of excluded middle. I can alter the quote so it is false because of excluded middle: > did not demand > the request is currently not "optional" (Feel free to send BTC to 1L941R7SdDRGrVhgckCLABWuabQrniZTtP.)
- peteretep 10y ago
  > I'm at a loss Shocker. > This is an example of > contradiction (~(P/\~P)), > not excluded middle (P\/~P) However: ~(P/\~P) <=> De Morgan's (~P\/~~P) <=> double negation (~P\/P) <=> \/ is commutative (P\/~P) Is there a difference between the two? Of course. Is producing notation that can be shown to be equivalent any way to conduct the argument? No, and it was also a clue you wouldn't know how to explain the difference between the two. > I take it we were > supposed to infer > that You can take whatever you like from it. The underlying English itself is ambiguous - you can indeed demand something that's optional - so there's not actually a contradiction there. It's more interesting then to draw attention to the fact that a third alternative to the truth value of the statement may be upcoming - perhaps the information will remain optional, unless of course you want any chance at all of your application succeeding? Tertium non datur, yet.
- dang 10y ago
  Personal attacks are not welcome on HN. We ban accounts that post like this, so please don't post like this again. Comments here need to be civil and substantive. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html