Adir Abraham
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 13:29:24 -0700
Shlomi.. A joke is a joke only if it shouldn't be explained, and naturally
is laughed (and understandable). If one (or more) does not laugh from a
joke, either the joke is: 1) Not funny. 2) Not told to the right group (I
wouldn't make jokes about computers infront of people who know history,
for instance). 3) You are the only one who laughed from it and thought
that it was funny, but it is not.
In general.. if you are really seeking for "help" in "who will laugh from
my joke", the joke is not a joke, or has one of the 3 reasons I told
you (about why one wouldn't laugh from your joke). One of the best
symptoms for a very bad joke is actually giving a very long explanation, a
thing that Nadav tried to do (and I really don't know just like him why
you actually picked him.)
I guess that your say is good only as a signature :)
On Thu, 25 Oct 2001, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2001, Shlomi Fish wrote about "[Haifux] My New Signature
>re-factored.":
> >
> > Nadav, please tell me that at least you understood the joke. One righteous
> > man in Sedom?
>
> Shlomi, I'm not sure why you decided to test me in public, or whether this is
> a test of my Mathematical abilities or of my sense of humor... (I have masters
> degree in the former, and a failure degree in the latter), or why this test
> was aimed at me, of all people.
>
> But I'll bite...
>
> > If:
> > 1. A is A
> > 2. A is not not-A
> > does it imply that
> > 1. B is B
> > 2. B is not not-B
>
> Why is this a "joke"? Is it supposed to be funny? How is it funny?
>
> Or is it some sort of deep logic thing? I read your forwarded post too, but
> it didn't help me understand what you're talking about. Here is what I can
> say about this issue:
>
> If a statement (call it S) is true for some "A", it isn't necessarily true for
> another "B". Not unless you have another statement saying that the original
> statement S is true for any object in the class Z, *and* that both A and
> B are members of Z.
>
> But since your wrote specific, not general, statements about A and B, (in
> our case S(x)="(x is x) AND (x is not not-x)", and we looked at the two
> statements S(A) and S(B)) it is conceivable that S(x) be right or wrong for
> *all* objects x of any type. For the answer to your question to be positive,
> we need S(x) to have the same truth-value (true or false) for any x of any
> type because we have no idea what type A or B is...
>
> But then a question arises - is your statement (S) at all defined for *all*
> objects? Before you answer, remember that a "set of all objects" cannot
> even be defined (it's easy to prove by paradox - ask me if you're interested).
> Also remember that your statement is given in some sort of language (English,
> logic, etc.) and it is not at all clear how it is defined for objects B
> that cannot be expressed in that laguage at all...
>
> Here are two ways to try to understand what you wrote by trying to define
> how your statement S works on large classes of objects (first, all objects
> expressible by English, and then all objects expressible by logics). Neither
> sounds very funny to me, nor very insightful, so maybe I'm missing something??
>
> If you define "is" and "not" for other classes of abstract objects, you
> can get different answers....
>
> ======== The "natural language" way to understand S ============
> In this case, the "B is not not-B" in the statement S(B) simply
> means
> "B" and "not B" are different things.
>
> This seems true for all English phrases B you can think of, but on second
> thought it might not be (an example follows). If it can be true to A, and
> false for B, then your question "does it imply" deserves the answer of no.
>
> For example, for A="True" (as an English word), we have A=A and A != not-A
> ("true" and "not true" are different concepts in English).
>
> However, consider B="in a million years", as in the sentence "When will
> I finish this project? In a million years!". Now, B ("in a million years") and
> "not B" ("not in a million years") can mean exactly the same thing in
> many contexts. For casual English (as opposed to Geology research papers),
> B = not-B.
>
> I know this sounds really silly, but so does (sorry), the original question...
> Unless I missed something really important...
>
> ======== The "logic" way to understand S ============
> Normally, when you formulate the axioms of logics, you should have the
> following axiom:
>
> For each truth value X (either TRUE or FALSE), you have the following
> 1. X=X
> 2. X=not not X
> (you can call these axioms, or part of the definitions of = and not).
>
> This then extends to any "form", or function, that has an arbitrary number
> of variables and produces a single truth value:
> f=f
> f=not not f
>
> [f=g should be understood as "f(x1,...,xn)=g(x1,...xn) for any choice of
> truth values x1..xn. Also, not f is a function defined as (not f)(x1..xn)
> = not (f(x1...xn)).]
>
> Example functions like that are CNF (conjunctive normal form) expressions,
> and their "not" can be expressed as a CNF again using De-Morgan's law, by
> the way.
>
> So your statement S(X) ("X is X, X is not not X") is true for any CNF
> expression, be it called A or B, and so your question "does it imply"
> deserves a "yes" answer in the context of CNF expressions.
>
>
> --
> Nadav Har'El | Thursday, Oct 25 2001, 9 Heshvan 5762
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-----------------------------------------
> Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |If Windows is the answer, you didn't
> http://nadav.harel.org.il |understand the question.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Haifa Linux Club Mailing List (http://linuxclub.il.eu.org)
> To unsub send an empty message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haifa Linux Club Mailing List (http://linuxclub.il.eu.org)
To unsub send an empty message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]