I’m already so done with this course.

My textbook:

p: “The weather is bad.”

Exercise:

Represent “the weather is good” using logical symbols.

Me: How am I supposed to answer that? You didn’t give me a letter for that. I guess I’ll use q?

Expected answer: ~p

THIS IS LITERALLY THE CLASS ABOUT LOGIC DHDJFBDHDJDHDHDH

Who let neurotypicals write a logic textbook istg

  • metaStatic
    link
    fedilink
    23 months ago

    didn’t notice this was a meme community. good work, I learned something new.

      • metaStatic
        link
        fedilink
        73 months ago

        if the first page of the book wasn’t “Here are the logic symbols” I’ll happily join you

        • @SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          43 months ago

          No, they did. I’m using ~ because I’m on mobile.

          But as anyone who knows even a little bit about set theory, the inverse of a set is everything not in that set. So the inverse of “bad” is “not bad.”

  • @Dave2@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    43 months ago

    uh wasn’t the symbol for “not” this-> ’ Would p’ be wrong? I never saw the squiggly in my lessons…

  • @cinnamonTea@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    5
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Wait, so is ~ supposed to mean not? Like, ¬p would’ve made sense but usually ~ means something closer to ∝, right?

  • @andros_rex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    353 months ago

    The point is they introduced p “the weather is bad.” To represent “the weather is good” you want to negate p. ~p - the opposite of p, the opposite of “the weather is bad.” Be economical with your symbols.

    • @SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      113 months ago

      Ok, but the inverse of “bad” would be “not bad.”

      “Good” =/= “not bad” because there are other potential states for the weather to be in. The weather could be “fine” or even “weird”, for instance.

      • @andros_rex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        233 months ago

        Most of the time, I think discrete is taught with an eye to computer science, right? You are trying to reduce things to binary or at least discrete outcomes - things that can be represented with 5V or 0V. True or false. The weather is good or it is not good. The weather is bad or it is not bad.

        This isn’t English class - rules will be a little different. Like, to most math problems I could be a smart ass and say “the answer is some y in the set of real numbers.” There’s different concepts at work here.

        • @SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          8
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          The weather is good or it is not good. The weather is bad or it is not bad.

          That’s exactly what I said, is it not?

          Also,

          This isn’t English class - rules will be a little different.

          Obviously. In English, “opposite” means antonyms. Good would be the opposite of bad, as would splendid, terrific, and amazing.

          But logical opposites work on set theory. The opposite of A is !A, not Z.

        • @SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          6
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Most of the time, I think discrete is taught with an eye to computer science, right?

          Sure. Not everything in computer science is binary, despite the fact that computers run on binary code. For example, sql has the boolean values of “true,” “false,” and “null.” In this system, null !== false, although it does evaluate to false in some situations.

          You’re much better off teaching set theory properly (which is what the course is aiming for) rather than teaching people to assume that all sets are composed of only two elements.

          Most programmers don’t even touch binary anyhow. That’s all abstracted away by the compiler.

          • @bleistift2@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            125 days ago

            Most programmers don’t even touch binary anyhow

            (Almost) every conditional (if, switch, while) and every test is binary.

          • @andros_rex@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            16
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Most programmers don’t even touch binary anyhow. That’s all abstracted away by the compiler.

            I don’t think that’s really true - a thorough understanding of Boolean logic is pretty essential to programming imho. I think you want to keep in mind the goal is not to prove you are smarter than the first chapter of your textbook, just to note the ideas and patterns it is introducing.

            • @SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              43 months ago

              I mean I’m definitely noticing the patterns. I’m just frustrated that someone who is supposedly an expert in logic let something like that slip. Not assuming that logical negation means “opposite” is one of the first things they teach you. For example, if we were thinking in opposites, the negation of “all” would be “none.” But the negation of “all” is “not all”, where the negation of “none” is “at least one.”

              • @andros_rex@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                23 months ago

                But the negation of “all” is “not all”, where the negation of “none” is “at least one.”

                That’s not how it’s usually going to work in discrete - that’s the message the book is trying to communicate to you.

                Think like an engineer designing a computer. The state of the weather is something that we are introducing as a binary here - bad or not bad, good or not good.

                I’m sure the next few chapters will talk about things like truth tables, right? Try to imagine what those would look like with a “trinary” logic system. Remember math is a tool we use to abstract reality efficiently.

                • Shaun Griffith
                  link
                  fedilink
                  23 months ago

                  @andros_rex @SuperNovaStar Picking something as continuous as “the weather” to explain negation is just stupid.

                  Pick something like “locked” or “unlocked”.

                  Yes, there’s a transition, and we all wave our hands and pretend it isn’t there. The same thing happens in Boolean algebra, when negating something.

                  Best not to get involved with “all”, “none”, “null”. Because you’ve left out “some”, “many”, “any”, “few”, “more”, “less”, and a host of more subtle values.

                • @SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  13 months ago

                  I tool a sql class, so if the trinary logic is True, False, and Null then I don’t have to imagine it, I already learned it.

                  I suppose you could have “true”, “false”, and “unknown” too. That could be interesting. But it wouldn’t look all that different - AND compares the values and returns the less certain of the two. OR compares values and returns the more certain of the two. Unknown inverted is still unknown. Not that hard.

                  Qbits have four states, I think? Now those are fun truth tables.

              • @gandalf_der_12te@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                23 months ago

                funnily enough, there exists an empty set, which contains no elements (none), but there doesn’t exist a “full” set which contains “all” elements. how interesting is that …

      • threelonmusketeers
        link
        fedilink
        English
        4
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        What kind of mobile UI are you using which doesn’t have exclamation points, but does have tildes?

        Edit: Oh, the actual symbol wasn’t ‘!’, but ‘¬’.