A = B , but only when A = A comic contest/photoshop contest , and B does NOT equal a crap entry.

Glad to have cleared that up for you. Ill return to eating my curds and whey now.

---
"Life Sucks, Then you Die. The bit inbetween isnt very funny either"

Don't you mean "Kurds"?

They're much tastier.

---
Dad was flammable

quote:

---

Transforming IF x THEN y into IF ~y THEN ~x is something else entirely... urm... standard logical syllogism, I think...

---

Your notation would be frowned upon by a professor of logic, but you have just demonstrated modus tollens (denying the consequent) and the formal logical fallacy of denying the antecedent quite nicely. Your car example is very much like my one about drying clothes. One of the classic ones from my first semester of doing this shit was something like this:

Take the proposition "if you drink poison then you die" and assume that it is 100% true. The two standard syllogisms we can take from this are modus ponens (affirming the antecedent):

P1. If you drink poison then you die.
P2. I just drank some poison.
therefore
C. I will now die.

...and modus tollens (denying the consequent):

P1. If you drink poison then you die.
P2. I am not dead.
therefore
C. I have not drunk any poison.

The two common formal fallacies that are similar to these, one of which was committed by Bazilla (Bazilla... committed... HA!), don't have fancy Latin names. They are affirming the consequent:

P1. If you drink poison then you die.
P2. John Lennon is dead.
therefore
C. John Lennon drank poison. (A certain Mr Champman may disagree...)

...and denying the antecedent:

P1. If you drink poison then you die.
P2. John Lennon has not drunk poison.
therefore
C. John Lennon is not dead. (Again, Mr Chapman may wish to argue the point...)

Most of the standard syllogisms are not as fun as these. They are stuff like "I will eat the fish or I will eat the steak. I did not eat the fish, therefore I ate the steak" and the mind-numbingly obvious "Dogs have four legs. Dogs bark. Therefore, dogs have four legs and bark."

As for set theory (Americans are human, Rush Limbaugh is American, therefore Rush Limbaugh is human) this is getting into the fun world of predicate logic, a wonderful little subset of deductive logic, in which you get such amazing things as universal propositions not affecting the existence of substantives and such... lots of fun...

---
This signature has performed an illegal operation and has been shut down.

How about "modus bazilli" as a Latin term for negating the antecedent?

And then there is proof by induction:

A: Zero_Entropy is a bunghole
B: n_Entropy is a bunghole ==> n+1_Entropy is a bunghole
Therefore C: All Entropies are bungholes.

And we won't even get into the "Nothing is better than sex; Masturbation is better than nothing" transitivity issues.

---
ken.kaufman@gmail.com

I.... I.... I....

---
What others say about boorite!

Everyone likes DexX, I am DexX, therefore everyone likes me.

I smell like cheese, cheese is made from milk, therefore I smell like milk.

---
I am not 16 going on not 17, I know that I'm naive.

The two features of a valid argument are truth and cogency. The above argument is certainly cogent, but it is based upon two false premises, making it an invalid argument.

This one is just wrong all over. Firstly, I should point out that you have passed out of deductive logic (the magical land of black and white, true and false, right and wrong) and into the scary realms of inductive, or non-deductive, logic, where an argument is never absolutely cogent, but only ever a strong argument or a weak argument.

I can't be buggered going to get my humongous dictionary of philosophy, so I can't tell you the official name of the informal logical fallacy you have used, but I can explain it to you in vague terms. You have assumed that, since one substance is derived from another, that they will share the same physical properties. What you have not taken into account are things like chemical reactions, and other non-milk ingredients in cheese. Here is your argument using different, and more obviously wrong, examples:

P1. I can make noises like a violin.
P2. A violin is made of wood.
therefore
C. I can make noises like wood.

Very silly, but it illustrates that a thing and its components will not always share the same features.

I am also falling alseep over here, so the preceding bullshit may make no sense at all. *snore*

---
This signature has performed an illegal operation and has been shut down.

I think the term is bazillogism.

quote:

---

P1. I can make noises like a violin.
P2. A violin is made of wood.
therefore
C1. I can make noises like wood.

---

P. a AND b
therefore
C. a

That's a standard syllogism with a single premise for you, Ken.

Sorry to sling facts at your joke. :)

---
This signature has performed an illegal operation and has been shut down.

Please stop. This discussion is causing flashbacks to my philosophy classes back in the late '80s. I had one symbolic logic class that was infuriatingly difficult. One of my friends who was in the class with me invented a logical rule called "Satan's Law." So if we were given a problem like:

[i]Check this expression for validity:

~P = ((Q & (P or R or S]) & ~(S && T)) Or ~(P & V)[/i]

then we would just answer "This expression is invalid by Satan's Law. Don't ask me to show my work. It just is." I think we both scraped through with Cs somehow. This was one of the classes that turned me off from finishing my philosophy degree.

---
"And Wirthling isn't worth the paper he isn't printed on."

Hmm. I always understood that as long as the conclusion followed from the premises then the argument was said to be valid, be those premises true or false.

quote:

---

Check this expression for validity:

~P = ((Q & (P or R or S]) & ~(S && T)) Or ~(P & V)

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Check this expression for validity:

~P = ((Q & (P or R or S]) & ~(S && T)) Or ~(P & V)

---

What's with the double ampersand? Is this some kind of Freudian C-slip, or is this an actual logical connective?

---

HE NALE'S TEH BICH!!!1

---
What others say about boorite!

Oy. I'm starting to remember some of this stuff now. Actually, I think I recall the logical problems we were given as being something more like this:

[i]Solve for P:

P = ~(Q -> (R and S)) Or (R and ~Q)
~P = (R -> Q) and ~(R or Q) or ~S[/i]

Then we had to use logical rules to boil down the expressions, sort of like one does with sets of linear equations in algebra.

By the way, I don't know that the example above is correct in any way. I just recall that the pattern looked somewhat like that. Maybe this stuff will look familiar to DexX...

---
"And Wirthling isn't worth the paper he isn't printed on."

What I find funny is that you could be making serious statements, or you could be telling algebra jokes that only 1 in few would get.

---
I am not 16 going on not 17, I know that I'm naive.

I wish I could line all you geeks up in a big row so I could slap you all at once.

---
100 pounds of shit in a 25 pound sack.

quote:

---

[i]Solve for P:
P = ~(Q -> (R and S)) Or (R and ~Q)
~P = (R -> Q) and ~(R or Q) or ~S[/i]

---

I cut a lot of classes, smoked a lot of pot, and didn't read the book. That might have been a factor.

I seem to recall something about it, though, that was somewhat like Algebra. We started out with a long logical expression (or a set of logical expressions? I don't quite recall) and then we had to apply logical rules to resolve the expression or something like that. I just remember writing blah blah blah by MT; blah blah blah by MP and so on.

Ah, OK, I googled around a bit and I think I found what I am trying to describe at http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/rfreeman/CHAPTER7.html. It appears the proper term for what I was describing is "logical proof." I saw this example on the page and the painful memories started rushing back:

1. ((P=Q)>(R=S))

2. -(R.S)

3. ((P>Q).(Q>P))

4. (P=Q).............3, Equiv

5. (R=S).............1, 4, MP

6. ((R.S)v(-R.-S))...........5, Equiv

7. (-R.-S)...............2, 6, DS

---
"And Wirthling isn't worth the paper he isn't printed on."

Oh yeah, those MP, MS things are among the terminology I have forgotten. :)

---
This signature has performed an illegal operation and has been shut down.

( . )( . )
haha boobies.

---
Batman created by Bob Kane

( | )

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

Fine, piss all over our intellectual conversation... *sob*

---
This signature has performed an illegal operation and has been shut down.

8====} ------ If P

---
My love for you is like diarrhea, I just can't hold it in. -Weird Al Yankovic

(o_o)

---
I am not 16 going on not 17, I know that I'm naive.