patrick.net

marcus says

Well the way you said it was closer to negating the inverse

No, I said it correctly.

marcus says

I realize (and half remember) that converse and the inverse are equivalent to eachother.

No they are not. The converse of a statement S and the inverse of the statement S are not equivalent. They are different statements.

Statement: If you are a dog, then you are an animal. (True)
Inverse: If you are not a dog, then you are not an animal. (False)
Converse: If you are an animal, then you are a dog. (False)
Contrapositive: If you are not an animal, then you are not a dog. (True).

Perhaps you are incorrectly remembering these rules. I hear memory is the first thing to go when you get old. If a statement is true, the contrapositive is also logically true. Likewise, when the converse is true, the inverse is also logically true.

Once you grasp elementary zero-order predicate logic, we'll start on first-order predicate logic and how it applies in relational database systems.

marcus says

I find that without any exceptions the people who impress me with their reasing NEVER say things like:

That is because you never hang out with software developers. I'm far more capable and humble than most. I don't think you'd be able to make it in the software business culture if you find me hard to deal with. You should see the people I work with. They tolerate fools far less graciously than I do. And I hear Silicon Valley is even worse.

In comparison, I've treated you with kiddie gloves.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Tony Manero says

The cure is CANNIBAL ANARCHY!

True, that would lower the unemployment rate.

Dan8267 says

The converse of a statement S and the inverse of the statement S are not equivalent.

Fail

A statement P --> Q is logically equivalent to
its contrapositive ~Q --> ~P
(not Q implies not P)

(check this with any simple example if you don't know this, although you certainly should. e.g. let P be all electricity in your apartment or house is out and let Q be your wired lights don't work

The inverse ~P --> ~Q (of P -->Q) is in fact the contrapositive
of Q --> P ( the converse
of the original P -->Q )

I didn't read the rest of your bs above except this.

Dan8267 says

That is because you never hang out with software developers. I'm far more capable and humble than most. I don't think you'd be able to make it in the software business culture if you find me hard to deal with. You should see the people I work with. They tolerate fools far less graciously than I do. And I hear Silicon Valley is even worse.

Your adding insult to injury to yourself here.

I worked for a software company before, and I dissagree.

marcus says

Fail

A statement P --> Q is logically equivalent to
its contrapositive ~Q --> ~P
(not Q implies not P)

(check this with any simple example if you don't know this, although you certainly should. e.g. let P be all electricity in your apartment or house is out and let Q be your wired lights don't work

The inverse ~P --> ~Q (of P -->Q) is in fact the contrapositive
of Q --> P ( the converse
of the original P -->Q )

I didn't read the rest of your bs above except this.

And that's the problem. Had you actually read my post before replying to it, you would have read my statements:

If a statement is true, the contrapositive is also logically true. Likewise, when the converse is true, the inverse is also logically true.

As well as the examples that show the converse and inverse are different statements. That's why there are two terms, not one.

Marcus, why are you such a grumpy old man? You should be happy to learn something from us young whippersnappers! You remind me of the two critics on the Muppet Show, particularly the one on the right.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/14njUwJUg1I

Oh wait, they didn't have t.v. or electricity when you were young. Did they?

You once told me as part of your description of how awesome you are that you can admit when you're wrong.

Dan8267 says

As well as the examples that show the converse and inverse are different statements

?????

The inverse and the converse are logically equivalent and have exactly the same logical meaning.

Dan8267 says

If a statement is true, the contrapositive is also logically true. Likewise, when the converse is true, the inverse is also logically true.

Marcus, you really need to read all the words in a posting before getting your panties in a bunch. I stated the correct laws even before you bitched about your misinterpretation of my words. Merely copying and pasting something you don't understand from the Web isn't good enough to prove your smart.

Okay, you said something that is correct. Bravo.

That doesn't mean this isn't wrong

Dan8267 says

No they are not. The converse of a statement S and the inverse of the statement S are not equivalent.

It's okay though. I know you well enough by now to know that you won't admit you were wrong.

Dan8267 says

Dan8267 says

If a statement is true, the contrapositive is also logically true. Likewise, when the converse is true, the inverse is also logically true.

It's more than that a statement and it's contrapositive have the same truth value. They literally say what is logically the same thing.

tatupu70 says

I don't even think he was advocating an economy with no savings--he was just saying that saving is a drain. Look at Japan. It's a concept.

So you're saying Japan's deflation is totally bad. That's your demonstration of Keynes' point on savings correct? Please at least agree on this so that we can move forward.

Japan's deflation also means that they can buy stuff from foreigners for cheap because their Yen is overvalued compared to other currencies. So it's not all bad that they've had deflation

Of course if you're an export oriented economy (classic example being Germany), a strong currency can totally f--k you up with today's currency system.

What we need is a system where the medium of exchange is completely separate and not tied to the wealth reserve (store of value).

In such a system, savers are never discouraged and are never cheated upon and more importantly -- are never FORCED/COERCED TO TAKE RISK, purely because that is "in the best interests of everyone". In this case, the "everyone" is pretty much the debtor class.

I don't like Krugman but it is correct that this is a depression, since the cause of it was not so much the normal business cycle, but the popping of an asset bubble (house prices).
The popping of a leveraged asset has led to depressions, like the tsunami following an earthquake.
In this case, the increased leverage risk assumed by the banks multiplied the losses from the asset bubble popping, with disastrous effects.
The reason Bernake is putting so much liquidity into the system by buying over $2 trillion of bonds is because he is a student of depressions, and he sees the similarity to our situation. Of course he will never utter the word depression to describe our present pickle. He would be foolish to.
If we don't have a repeat of 12 years of FDR following Hoover, we should be OK.
The reaction of politicians to an economic emergency is usually what determines how severe and how long the depression lasts. So far the bad moves by Obama and Pelosi have lengthened this one by several years.

clambo says

So far the bad moves by Obama and Pelosi have lengthened this one by several years.

Hasn't BB discredited these bs claims of yours in other threads.

marcus says

Okay, you said something that is correct. Bravo.

That doesn't mean this isn't wrong

Marcus, only you could use a Straw Man argument against a priori logic.

The word "equivalent" is not synonymous with the phrase "logically equivalent".

Two statements are equivalent if they say the same thing. Two statements are logically equivalent if each implies the other. Learn some fucking English.

Example: Two equivalent statements
Statement 1: The ball is red and blue.
Statement 2: The ball is blue and red.

Example: Two logically equivalent statements
Statement 3: If you are a dog, then you are an animal.
Statement 4: If you are not an animal, then you are not a dog.

In mathematical terms S3 <==> S4, but S3 is not equal to S4.

Just because you don't understand the standard nomenclature, doesn't make the rest of us wrong. Every mathematician in the world would have understood what I said. I can only conclude that you deliberately misinterpret things to confuse and mislead people.

Dan8267 says

Two statements are equivalent if they say the same thing. Two statements are logically equivalent if each implies the other. Learn some fucking English.

Well at least we won't say you didn't have a chance to man up and admit you were wrong.

I admitted I was wrong to say that you should have said inverse instead of converse. I was wrong because they are in fact logically equivalent.

Dan8267 says

The word "equivalent" is not synonymous with the phrase "logically equivalent".

Priceless. Classic Dan.

Not because you might learn anything from me Dan, but instead, just as the mean old man rubbing it in:

Dan8267 says

Every mathematician in the world would have understood what I said.

False. To mathematicians equivalence often has meanings other than equality, depending on context.

For example equivalence can refer to equivalence classes (or equivalence relation):

28 is congruent to 3 (mod 5)

Referring to two conditional statements, because of the context, every
English speaking Mathematician in the world mathematician would know that I was referring to logical equivalence (which I elaborated long before you used this pathetic attempt to wiggle your way out of being wrong).

And they would have known you were wrong and would have no clue that you thought equivalence of logical statements should mean what, some kind of syntactic equality ?

They especially would have known it because they would know that the inverse and the converse of a conditional statement are equivalent logical statements (yes - logically equivalent).

Dan, it's not too late to man up.

Why don't you just say something like, "Okay I was wrong, but I was wrong, because in my need to always be right, it didn't occur to me that equivalence of two conditional expressions (that aren't the same statement) must mean logical equivalence,... my bad."

Marc us, are you really so mother-fucking stupid that you actually think I didn't realize that a converse of a statement is true if and only if the inverse is true when I said

If a statement is true, the contrapositive is also logically true. Likewise, when the converse is true, the inverse is also logically true.

How fucking daft are you?

The fact is you are trying to use nomenclature to argue I don't know the laws of logic that I explicitly stated before all your bitching began. That is a retarded argument.

And don't even start on Group Theory with me. I could kick your ass in Group Theory, Ring Theory, and any other part of Abstract Algebra as I've actually studied these subjects.

And as for predicate logic, don't even talk to me until you can write code like this.

Talk is cheap. All that matters is what you can accomplish.

I've done all of the following. How many have you done?

1. Written open-source code that is used by people on every continent and almost every country.
2. Designed and built a working computer right down to the level of digital logic gates.
3. Built a robot with a neural network capable of learning and obeying commands.
4. Implemented video encoders and decoders.
5. Wrote code that transmits pages of the Wall Street Journal over Dow Jones' corporate satellites.
6. Wrote chess playing AIs.
7. Built ecommerce systems under various architectures.
8. Wrote code for law enforcement that tracks down pedophiles using the information embedded in digital images and displaying the address where the picture was taken on Google Earth.
9. Created 3D rendering engines and applications with 3D interfaces.
10. Wrote various distributed processing systems including audio encoder load balancers and ray tracers.

And that's just to name a few things I've done over the course of my career. You, Marcus, could not do any of those things. Every single one of those things above requires far greater mastery of logic than you could even imagine.

You want to impress me with how good you are at logic? Implement an encoder for MPEG-4. I doubt you'd even be able to figure out how to calculate motion vectors. As they say in Texas, you are all hat and no cattle.

I think someone is overcompensating for a small johnson...

tatupu70 says

I think someone is overcompensating for a small johnson...

I drive a Volvo. 'Nuff said.

Dan8267 says

tatupu70 says

I think someone is overcompensating for a small johnson...

I drive a Volvo. 'Nuff said.

OK--good point.

Dan8267 says

No they are not. The converse of a statement S and the inverse of the statement S are not equivalent.

then later...

Dan8267 says

The word "equivalent" is not synonymous with the phrase "logically equivalent"

I've had time to reflect on this, and I've decided you're right. Any Logician, Mathematician or software architect who was worth their salt, like you, would have interpreted my statement that the inverse and the converse (both conditional statements) "are equivalent,"as

meaning that I was saying they are syntactically equal rather than semantically equivalent.

You're definitely right. I'm sorry you had to go through the trouble of busting out some code again, and listing your accomplishments before I could finally get it through my thick skull that you're right.

( I'm now yelling at myself silently inside my mind..."you idiot !!")

Wow, I actually quite surprised at your change. I had written you off as incapable of abandoning your personal dislike of me and acting rationally. I am glad to be wrong about that, and I appreciate the effort involved in rethinking your position. It gives me hope that if you can correct your behavior, then perhaps there is even hope for Shrek, liv4ever, percat, and others.

In any case, I'm glad that you understand that I wasn't trying to pull one over you, and I hope we can now begin more cordial and sincere discussions of controversial issues. I cannot promise that I won't piss you off again, but I can promise you that everything I say on this site is the honest truth as best as I know it.

Dan8267 says

I had written you off as incapable of abandoning your personal dislike of me and acting rationally.

I know. Before I thought that my personal dislike of you was in fact acting rationally, in the extreme. But I've come to realize that either because of the way others have treated you, and maybe the way they treat you now, when you come to this forum, it's a place for you to liberate your inner asshole, and enjoy a certain degree of intellectual dishonesty that is your true nature.

OF course the other possibility is that you are just a make believe character who writes on this forum. Because I find many of your traits (that I won't list here) to be extremely inconsistent with the personality traits of a good programmer.

Then again, what do I know, I'm just an idiot who has lied to you about having a masters degree in Math, and who couldn't hold a candle to you in any domain.

Please picture me walking away from you backwards, bowing every few steps I take.

marcus says

I know. Before I thought that my personal dislike of you was in fact acting rationally, in the extreme. But I've come to realize that either because of the way others have treated you, and maybe the way they treat you now, when you come to this forum, it's a place for you to liberate your inner asshole, and enjoy a certain degree of intellectual dishonesty that is your true nature.

Well, that didn't last long. I guess I was wrong about being wrong about Marcus being beyond hope or redemption. That will teach me to have any hope in the human species.