mccFeb 18

Me: A ⋀ B

Person on social media: How dare you say A ⇒ B

Me: *Tears at hair*

Show threadmccFeb 18

Me: ∃ x P(x)

Person on social media: How dare you say ∀ x P(x)

Me: *Tears at hair*

Show threadmccFeb 18

Me: A ⇒ B

Person on social media: How dare you say ¬A ⇒ ¬B

Me: *Tears at hair*

Show threadNathan Vander WiltFeb 18
@mcc almost well actuallied this one reading it as "¬B ⇒ ¬A" 😆
Show threadInga stands with 🇺🇦 🇵🇸
@natevw @mcc I even thought that the original reference was to how people on social media use classical logic instead of intuitionistic and started trying to figure out if the latter statement can be reduced from the former in intuitionistic logic (I'm rusty okay?), and then saw your reply
Feb 19 at 12:36amWeb
Show threadmccFeb 19

@IngaLovinde @natevw intuititionistic logic might actually be the correct one for discussing the real world because so many things people talk about IRL are to some degree subjective or require proof-standards

"he's not *not* an anarchist" is a reasonable statement might say about a person

Show threadInga stands with 🇺🇦 🇵🇸Feb 19
@mcc @natevw a soviet joke:
Professor during the class explains how in many languages double negations cancel each other out and result in agreement (but in some others, reinforce each other), and off-handedly remarks how in no language double agreements result in negation.
Student from the back of the class, sarcastically: "yes, sure".