4 ms·
No, it's a more accessible way of saying it.
by rhizome 5y ago
No, it's a more accessible way of saying it.
- titzer 5y agoI don't really agree. I find the long-winded version confusing, and as I am not sure if there is a gotcha somewhere in there, I have to read the whole thing and follow the whole argument. You don't necessarily have to use math symbols, but it really helps to be terse.
- rhizome 5y agoPure solipsism.
- jacquesm 5y agoLook at how many words you've already used, that's more than the original. So much for terseness.
- titzer 5y agoOne nit generates another; on and on it goes. I wasn't even further explaining the concept, just explaining why.
- Falling3 5y agoWhy waste time say lot word when few do trick? For anyone with even a passing knowledge of symbolic logic, what you provided is clear. But the explanation wouldn't be required for those people who are going to be familiar with that Fallacy anyway. It's for those who aren't aware of it. In that case, the symbolic version is of no help and the longer verbal explanation is important.
- cutemonster 5y agoWhat about starting with a TL;DR for those who know symbols, then the detailed explanation? But oh no, I think the edit window has closed for @ARandomerDude
- rhizome 5y agoThere's no reason to use symbolic logic on a mixed-audience webboard, it's just a flex.