Coolest troll of the year, you even got modded insightfull. Now, I do have mod points, but it's more fun to refute your "proof" than to mod you down.
A proof in Logic is the situation where every row in the table contains "true", in other words, if the statement is a tautology. Now in the truth table you linked, the second line is false, so you cannot prove "if p then q" for every "p" and "q".
Now you could argue that we're not talking about every "p" and "q", but only about the true ones. But then you would establish causation between every two true propositions:
From p = "1 + 1 = 2" and q= "France is a European country"
would follow, by your logic, "if p then q" and also "if q then p".
Even more, from the table you could prove that "if 1+1=3 then France is a European country" and "if 1+1=3 then France is an American soft drink" as being true.
For classical proposition logic, the "content" of a proposition is its truth value and nothing but its truth value. This is fine for AND, OR and NOT, but with "IF THEN" you get all kinds of problems. The material implication is not a good model for causation, that's why there are things like for example relevance logic.
And Xerox PARC took the researchers from SRI who had been working on bit-mapped displays, collaboration software, hypertext, precursors to the graphical user interface and of course the computer mouse. That was the 60s.
It's a pitty they did not take some of the innovations by SRI from the 70s, clairvoyance or psychokinetic interfaces would have been awesome.
What halting problem?
Never assume your reader knows everything you do.
The halting problem: it is not possible to wite a program, let's call it P, which takes another program as its input and then tell if that program will stop or go into an infinite loop.
To understand that this is impossible, imagine you would write a shell script which calls P and passes its own argument to P. Next the shell script would enter an infinite loop if P says its input will end. If P says its input would generate an infinite loop, the shell script would end. Now run the shell script and let it pass its own source code and the source code of P itself (for all practical purposes, P and the script form together a single program) as input into P. Now you get a paradox: if the shell script ends, it goes into an infinite loop and if it goes into an infinite loop its has to end...
I second the advise on reading Hofstadter's GEB.
1951: European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC)
1957: European Economic Community (EEC)
1967: European Community (EC)
1973: UK, Ireland & Denmark join EC
1993: European Union (EU)
Indeed, I was not replying to the original post, but to the parent who wrote "Oh, treaties concerning the military powers should be secret". I can also understand the use of discretion during the negotiations.
In the present democratic systems the only choice is between several persons/parties who admit they strife for power (definition of a "candidate").
The representatives could however be appointed for a single term by a lottery in stead of an election. Everybody is a candidate, including convicted criminals (since the definition of a crime is temporal & it would be too easy to pervert the system by convicting all your political adversaries) and including those people who don't want to be a representative (they might even be the best candidates). It would guarantee an even spread over the population and they wouldn't care about being re-elected. (I didn't come up with this idea, the first time I read it was in The Songs of Distant Earth by Arthur C. Clarke)
Slashdot Mirror
Coolest troll of the year, you even got modded insightfull. Now, I do have mod points, but it's more fun to refute your "proof" than to mod you down.
A proof in Logic is the situation where every row in the table contains "true", in other words, if the statement is a tautology. Now in the truth table you linked, the second line is false, so you cannot prove "if p then q" for every "p" and "q".
Now you could argue that we're not talking about every "p" and "q", but only about the true ones. But then you would establish causation between every two true propositions:
From p = "1 + 1 = 2" and q= "France is a European country"
would follow, by your logic, "if p then q" and also "if q then p".
Even more, from the table you could prove that "if 1+1=3 then France is a European country" and "if 1+1=3 then France is an American soft drink" as being true.
For classical proposition logic, the "content" of a proposition is its truth value and nothing but its truth value. This is fine for AND, OR and NOT, but with "IF THEN" you get all kinds of problems. The material implication is not a good model for causation, that's why there are things like for example relevance logic.
a communist government is an unacceptable evil by its very existence.
As a communist, I completely agree with your statement. (Every government is an evil.)
And Xerox PARC took the researchers from SRI who had been working on bit-mapped displays, collaboration software, hypertext, precursors to the graphical user interface and of course the computer mouse. That was the 60s.
It's a pitty they did not take some of the innovations by SRI from the 70s, clairvoyance or psychokinetic interfaces would have been awesome.
Beware the revenge of Antares, make sure you have stellar convertors.
TFA reads: remove the keyboard.
From the pictures it even seems the screen can be rolled up when the keyboard has been removed.
"usability" doesn't mean crap when it means re-learning. Very, very few people actually want to take time to re-learn computers.
Damn, I miss those days when you had to relearn about everything each time you touched another brand of computer.
What halting problem? Never assume your reader knows everything you do.
The halting problem: it is not possible to wite a program, let's call it P, which takes another program as its input and then tell if that program will stop or go into an infinite loop.
To understand that this is impossible, imagine you would write a shell script which calls P and passes its own argument to P. Next the shell script would enter an infinite loop if P says its input will end. If P says its input would generate an infinite loop, the shell script would end. Now run the shell script and let it pass its own source code and the source code of P itself (for all practical purposes, P and the script form together a single program) as input into P. Now you get a paradox: if the shell script ends, it goes into an infinite loop and if it goes into an infinite loop its has to end...
I second the advise on reading Hofstadter's GEB.
You can also right-click on any flash-component and select "settings".
You can set the flash settings here for any browser.
Indeed, what else to expect from a company which was founded by emperor Napoleon III?
How in the world did they (= the EU) form before the internet was invented?
Just look at the first date in my previous reply: Steampunk.
The EU has been around since 1973?
1951: European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC)
1957: European Economic Community (EEC)
1967: European Community (EC)
1973: UK, Ireland & Denmark join EC
1993: European Union (EU)
Fortunately before it could be done the Netherlands broke free of Spain.
The northern part of the Netherlands broke free, Antwerp and everything south of it remained occupied by Spain.
Here is the original article by Gödel this is about.
even the best security experts in the world can not make a DRM system that works.
All security experts have maximum two of the following properties:
- they are competent
- they are honest
- they believe DRM is possible
(I don't remember who I'm quoting or paraphrasing here.)
I think I just found what will be (part of) the setting of my next tabletop RP campaign.
(if I'm missing some obsucre reference, so be it)
This is what you're missing.
Communism is not compatible with individual liberty and freedom. Communism implies the subordination of the individual to the state.
This is true for Marxist/Leninist/statist communism. But communism as such does not need a state, check Kropotkin and other anarchist communists.
Right, the nuances you added are valid indeed.
Indeed, I was not replying to the original post, but to the parent who wrote "Oh, treaties concerning the military powers should be secret". I can also understand the use of discretion during the negotiations.
That is correct, but Emperor Norton of the United States was already in favor of it in the 19th century.
The eternal question is, what is the solution?
In the present democratic systems the only choice is between several persons/parties who admit they strife for power (definition of a "candidate").
The representatives could however be appointed for a single term by a lottery in stead of an election. Everybody is a candidate, including convicted criminals (since the definition of a crime is temporal & it would be too easy to pervert the system by convicting all your political adversaries) and including those people who don't want to be a representative (they might even be the best candidates). It would guarantee an even spread over the population and they wouldn't care about being re-elected. (I didn't come up with this idea, the first time I read it was in The Songs of Distant Earth by Arthur C. Clarke)
The League of Nations (1919-1946) forbade all secret treaties, especially military ones, since they lead to the Great War (WW1) - outlawing secret treaties was pushed by Woodrow Wilson. It was broken by the Hoare-Laval Pact in 1935, which effectively killed the League of Nations.
... are a "core intellectual property team".
... are "a core intellectual property team".