4 ms·

Old CS students' prank: improving the "no food and drink" sign unsurprisingly often found in labs by scribbling "no (food && drink) == (no food || no drink)" on

• ygra 13y ago
  Wouldn't that be (no food) and (drink) anyway?
  • praptak 13y ago
    Dunno, maybe spoken language does not have such strict operator priority. Or maybe it has one different than maths and programming languages.
    • baddox 13y ago
      What the sign clearly means is "no [members of the set] food and drink."
      • aaronem 13y ago
        But what the sign says is either "no(food && drink)" or "no(food) && drink", depending on how you feel about precedence. The obvious implication in the first case is that either food or drink, or neither, but not both, is permissible; in the second, it's that drink is acceptable only when not also accompanied by food, but no other constraint is expressed with regard to either. If the intent was to express that neither food nor drink is permissible in any combination, the correct form, both logically and grammatically, would be "No food or drink".
        • evincarofautumn 13y ago
          That first statement is false because English “and” is not the same thing as logical “and”.
• dmak 13y ago
  Rebels.
• danpalmer 13y ago
  Our CS labs solved that by allowing any food and drink we want. Dominos understand "the undergrad labs, ECS" as an address.
• jjaredsimpson 13y ago
  Those pranksters just don't understand the left distributive law of foodstuffs.