Re: Why Python When There Is Perl?

On 3/23/2024 8:38 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:

On 3/23/2024 6:08 PM, Farley Flud wrote:

If a number is not prime, then could it be odd?  This is the
correct way to to interpret "~A => B."  The answer is "yes"
and the condition is true.

  Ok, got it at last.
 Then they should not have used the notion of implication ("IMP") right between A and B.
 Correct choices would be an abbreviation of one of these phrases:
 - Could it be that (CIBT)
- Would it logically allow (WILA)
- is it possible that (IIPT)
- concurrent with (CW)
 I would prefer the CW of course, for brevity and yet enough transparency.
 In other words, we must use the notion of _concurrence_, and not _implication_. Somebody fucked the wording of it up.
 The notion of implication comes _after_ A IMP B =, not between A and B!
 So I bet nowhere in math the word "implication" has been used for it except at the very last result. So you've got to be careful what math symbols you are using in explaining it.
 Would be nice to find when and where the use of "IMP" appeared first, and by whom. It must've been a programming language book, and not a math book.
 The shit one has to go through to get it, when something of math nature is placed in the hands of a grocer to develop. The one who chose implication, should've chosen a career in grocery store business.
 Again, thank you for the clarification.
        

But still some ambiguity remains in my mind.
(A AND B) = (B AND A), and (A OR B) = (B OR A). They commute, so to speak. But (A IMP B) doesn't commute. How would computer distinguish between A and B then? Does it look at the ordering to see what comes first as it goes from left to right, and gives the role of A to that one? In that case The programmer needs to damn well know which one of the condition he places to the left of IMP and which one to the right! This is a new situation.
Is it so?
I've never had to do that.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com