[whateverfloats]

I don't understand question 5 in my homework.

We made pizza tonight as well. We didn't have much to top it with so we put on the leftover shepard's pie (minus the potato). It was pretty good.

[sailormars84]

entropian_v2 wrote: Way to bust out the secret weapon. Meany! Ok, ok, you can have a piece or two if you want (I shouldn't eat it all anyway! ), if you like this kind.. It's a cheese pizza that has been degreased (yes, I really do take a small stack of napkins and soak up as much grease from the pizza as I can before cutting it )

Seriously? haha, I do that too.

Aw! Thanks for sharing! <3 I promise not to abuse the use of the secret weapon....too often.

[sailormars84]

whateverfloats wrote: I don't understand question 5 in my homework.

Ooo! What's the question?
<---- Nerd.

[whateverfloats]

sailormars84 wrote: Ooo! What's the question? <---- Nerd.

O_o

Do you know any set theory? We're supposed to prove a tautology but were never taught how to do it. So I figured I'd just show that it holds for all truth assignments.

We have to prove that (alpha iff beta) iff (alpha tautologically implies beta) and (beta tautologically implies alpha) using the definition of 'tautologically implies'. But I'm not even sure that the statement we have to prove is true.

[suzw5]

whateverfloats wrote: O_o Do you know any set theory? We're supposed to prove a tautology but were never taught how to do it. So I figured I'd just show that it holds for all truth assignments. We have to prove that (alpha iff beta) iff (alpha tautologically implies beta) and (beta tautologically implies alpha) using the definition of 'tautologically implies'. But I'm not even sure that the statement we have to prove is true.

I just love this kind of talk!
Therefore: This kind of talk loves me - But this could be a syllogism... Or a contradiction, or faulty karma .

But if this is a serious question Floats, then I apologize for being a smart-eleck. I just always prefered Lao-Tze to Wittgenstein. If you haven't already you may want to check out this link for Wikipedia :
Tautology (logic) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good luck.

[sailormars84]

Oh shoot. I'm sorry Emma, I just got *really* sleepy, and I can't think through your question. I'm not sure I could help anyway, although I'd love to try if my brain were working. I'm just so sleepy! I'll try to think tomorrow (hope that won't be too late for your HW). g-night!

[whateverfloats]

It's a serious question.

But I've given up. My friend who is also in the class can't get it either so I'm thinking most everyone else will be confused on that one too. But Wittgenstein's the man.

[nienna-telrunya]

Im listening to Marilyn Manson.
This car in the car park is gonna get egged in a mo if the alarm dont stop goin off.
I HATE pink, yet i seem to be wearing pink undies
Its 22:09 here in the UK.
JCVD is looking rather old, and JM is soooooo fricking nice
Mmmmmmmmmmm Will Turner


Thats my randomness for this eveing

[lo_specchio]

whateverfloats wrote: It's a serious question. But I've given up. My friend who is also in the class can't get it either so I'm thinking most everyone else will be confused on that one too. But Wittgenstein's the man.

Have you cleared it up already now? If I got everything right (those damn terminology differences...), this statement is true and can be verified by checking that every set of variables satisfies the formula. You have only 2 variables, thus only 4 sets of variables. If you haven't cleared it up yet, tell me, I will write my solution. Assuming I got the "given" right.

[lo_specchio]

Just went to the geezers cafe to check if any of you guys were there and it was full of some people I've never seen before. From the usernames I suspect those are kiddos, but what are they all doing there?