3 ms·
"we can all agree that . . . ???" ¬(¬MY_PEEPS ⇒ ¬SKILLZ) ∧ ¬(¬SKILLZ ⇒ ¬SOFTWARE) # original formula ¬(SKILLZ ⇒ MY_PEEPS ∨ SOFTWARE ⇒ SKILLZ) # De
by klochner 16y ago
"we can all agree that . . . ???"
¬(¬MY_PEEPS ⇒ ¬SKILLZ) ∧ ¬(¬SKILLZ ⇒ ¬SOFTWARE) # original formula
¬(SKILLZ ⇒ MY_PEEPS ∨ SOFTWARE ⇒ SKILLZ) # De Morgan
¬(¬SKILLZ ∨ MY_PEEPS ∨ ¬SOFTWARE ∨ SKILLZ) # (a⇒b) ↔ (¬a∨b)
¬(¬SKILLZ ∨ SKILLZ ∨ MY_PEEPS ∨ ¬SOFTWARE) # re-arranging
¬(TRUE ∨ MY_PEEPS ∨ ¬SOFTWARE) # (¬a∨a) ↔ TRUE
FALSE # ¬TRUE ↔ FALSE
- raganwald 16y agoNo, I don't agree. Maybe you should explain each step so that I can follow along. I am probably not as smart as you are. Update: I think you are being a bit literal. The two SKILLZ aren't the same proposition. The first is the proposition that a particular person has some characteristics I value. the second is the proposition that a particular team has some characteristics I value. So if you want to get really serious, you might call the first one SKILLZ-sub-candidate and the second SKILLS-sub-team. Thinking this through was valuable, thank you and have an upmod.
- klochner 16y agoformal logic isn't something you're supposed to get "hand-wavey" with, especially if you're trying to show off your geek-cred. and I found it happily ironic that he preceded the statement with "i think we can all agree"
- raganwald 16y agoFirst, perhaps you don't know this, but: "I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together." Next, how about I write my words and you write yours, and furthermore I write mine for my reasons, and you write yours for your reasons? Because if what happened was that you understood what I was saying and you agreed with it, then I suggest to you that it worked JUST FINE, geek points be damned.