p. >humans do not exist. q. >computers exist. >if human do not exist, then computers exist

p
>humans do not exist

q
>computers exist

>if human do not exist, then computers exist
>somehow this is a true statement

So you're telling me every single programming language is based on a fallacy?

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Falsehood implies anything, pleb. Learn to logic.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Glad to see you've started your semester in formal logic, please finish it before attempting to talk again

      >IT'S TRUE BECAUSE... IT JUST IS OK?!?!?!

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        that is the axiom that formal logic is built off
        there is no physical law that states that the laws of formal logic are actually logical

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Okay, think of it like this, "computers exists" is true no matter what, if I say "The fact that we live in the world of Terminator 2 implies that computers exists." doesn't fucking mean that computers don't exist. In the same way ""If we live in the world of Terminator 2 then the Terminator exists." is sound logic but it doesn't mean Arnold Schwarzenegger is a robot. This is what

        Falsehood implies anything, pleb. Learn to logic.

        means with "falsehood implies anything", the counterpart of this is that True™ things will NEVER imply something false, that's why they are fucking True™.
        This is obviously bait (hopefully), because being filtered by truth tables is fucking sad.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Glad to see you've started your semester in formal logic, please finish it before attempting to talk again

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes computers can exist even if humans never existed. God can simply create a Lenovo ThinkPad E15 Business Laptop (2022 Model), 15.6" FHD IPS Display, Intel Core i5-1135G7, Intel Iris Xe Graphics, 16GB RAM, 512GB PCIe SSD, Backlit Keyboard, Fingerprint Reader, WIFI 6, Win10 Pro whenever he wants. It's called thinking logically and once you know anything about logic you can solve anything

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The only case where computers don't exist is the case where computers don't exist. Can't you even logic?

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I did this too many years ago, don't you need to negate p?
    ¬p -> q

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      no
      p -> q is equivalent to ¬p ^ q

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    retard

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Shut the fuck up

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Shut the fuck up

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You are fundamentally misunderstanding the meaning of the conditional statement

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Po because for p -> q, !p implies nothing about the truthiness of q.
    You are confusing it with p <-> q: if and only if p, then q.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >If OP is a homosexual, he will make a shit thread.
    p: OP is a homosexual
    q: OP makes a shit thread

    >OP is a homosexual and he makes a shit thread
    True, because the conclusion is supported by the hypothesis

    >OP is not a homosexual, but he creates a shit thread
    The hypothesis could be true, even if the evidence given does not support it. Evaluates to true.

    >OP is not a homosexual and he does not create a shit thread
    evaluates to true, because negation of the hypothesis supports the negation of the conclusion

    >OP is a homosexual but he does not create a shit thread
    The conclusion yields false, but the hypothesis is true. This means the statement must be false, since the evidence does not support the conclusion

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    > CS brainlet filtered by mathematics #948358

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >p: humans do not exist
    >!q: computers do not exist
    This situation was true at some point, therefore it is possible for p and !q to be true. p->q is therefore not true by the second line of the true table.

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    O = OP exists
    P = dicksucking exists

    O P --> PQ
    T T --> T

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    naggers bastardizing my propositional logic, fuck you and your lack of understanding OP

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Okay mindlets, listen up. LULZ here to save the day. P implies Q from symbolic logic is not the same thing as a conditional from programming, despite using similar language.

    P IMPLIES Q is logically equivalent to (NOT P OR Q). Your board doesn't support Latex, but you wouldn't understand the proof if I showed it to you. Instead, look at the table to verify this, you fat, retarded chimpanzee.

    You can now see your P IMPLIES Q sentence can be rewritten as "humans exist, or computers exist", which is true.

    This is however, not meaningful. To show why, let's try something silly. Let's have both P and Q be "Humans don't exist". Now speaking NOT P OR Q out loud gives you "Humans do exist or humans don't exist." which is a vacuous truth.

    >tl;dr: OP failed Intro to Symbolic Logic and wants to make it LULZ's problem.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >

      [...]

      here

      That is where I stopped reading.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >I'm proud of being retarded!
        Do whatever you want, smooth brain. The explanation is there for your betters.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >hurr durr you a dummy for not believing my religious ramblings
          >herp derpyour brain is smooth like mine, according to Science!!!!

          I am happy you are able to freely share your ``opinion'' on the myriad of topics this website provides. Enjoy your stay on LULZ - technology

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I agree, they do not match our level of retarded autism.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >LULZ here
      dropped like a sack of shit

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Your board doesn't support Latex, but you wouldn't understand the proof if I showed it to you
      based level 9001 naggerq theoretical physicist discovering all the secrets of the universe and math but not telling anyone because they wouldn't understand.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Look at the table, fat retard-kun. You don't need a proof when calculating the thing to exhaustion only requires 20 entries in a table.

        If you want a proof you won't understand, consult the first chapter of any undergraduate Symbolic Logic textbook or just Google it.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          https://wikiless.tiekoetter.com/wiki/Vacuous_truth?lang=en
          now I'm level 9001 naggerq + 1 (naggerq)
          67 away from being naggerlicious

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Appealing to intuition here. Notice that when I say "Don't go outside in America or you will be shot" is the same "If you go outside in America then you will be shot"
      Humans intuitively understand that P -> Q and NOT P OR Q are logically equivalent, giving us the definition of ->, and making sense of vacuous statements.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >LULZ supports LaTeX
      neat
      they should give us some cool features too, like a flag that shows your favorite consumer brands

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >all these replies
    it's a troll thread idiots

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Do you have a mirror?

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    --> != <-->

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    please upgrade your IQ sir

Your email address will not be published.