Liste des Groupes | Revenir à ol advocacy |
On 3/22/2024 8:40 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:You may respond as, "that's how it works when you switch B with ~B. The negation reverses all four cases of the results." Sure, but!On 3/22/2024 4:04 PM, Farley Flud wrote:But what if the implication is based on "Trump doesn't pay his taxes" being always true? We'll then have,On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 21:01:30 -0500, Physfitfreak wrote:>
>>>
IMP
0 IMP 0 = 1
0 IMP 1 = 1
1 IMP 0 = 0
1 IMP 1 = 1
>
How can that be explained?...
A = "If it is raining"
>
B = "The sky is cloudy"
>
The only way that A => B is false is if A is true and B
is false.
>
>
>
There we go again. I spend half hour concocting a new baby problem based on that, then after posting it I see you've already given the answer for everybody here to see...
>
Your description and the example you brought are pretty good. Not a single one of the other COLA members would be able to post such a convincing answer. I hope this tells those idiots something about how they treat you here.
>
A = "If you pay your taxes"
B = "You are not Trump"
Now we'll get:
A.....B
-------
0 IMP 0 = 0
0 IMP 1 = 0
1 IMP 0 = 0
1 IMP 1 = 1
and the results different from the example you gave. No? Isn't an IMP relation supposed to have only one 0 and the rest 1's? How come now we have the opposite of that?
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.