RE: CTS community mail
- From: Ryan Williams <ryan820509@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 21:15:31 +0200
*LOL*
That Jean though...
And Professor X looks (and sounds) like Dr. Evil *lol*
On 29 Dec 2014 21:02, "lindsey kiviets" <lindseyak@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-iMVsi0IuY
> ------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 15:59:16 +0200
> Subject: Re: CTS community mail
> From: ilitirit@xxxxxxxxx
> To: cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> If you want to get really technical (read: anal) you can say that you'd
> also have to prove that married and unmarried are mutually exclusive
> states.
>
> Consider polygamy: You can be married to 4 women, but then you divorce 1.
> To unmarry someone means to undo a marriage them. So technically in this
> case you are married and unmarried.
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 3:30 PM, sameegh jardine <sameegh@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> lol, hadn't considered that possibility :P
>
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Ilitirit Sama <ilitirit@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Correct, except if you use Constructive Logic. In that case you would be
> required to prove that Alice, Bob and Charlie are indeed a married or
> unmarried person, and you would not be able to use the Law of the Excluded
> Middle or Double Negation.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionistic_logic
>
> Why is this important? Because Alice, Bob and Charlie may in fact be the
> name of animals (not people), which would either mean the answer is False
> or undecidable.
>
> But we are reasonable folk after all, so we can appeal to Occam's Razor to
> handle that.
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 9:25 PM, sameegh jardine <sameegh@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> Yes, because irrespective of Alice's status the question being asked will
> be held true for either the first or second statement.
>
> On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Ilitirit Sama <ilitirit@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> By the way, here's a riddle:
>
> Bob is looking at Alice. Alice is looking at Charlie. Bob is married.
> Charlie is not.
>
> Is a married person looking at an unmarried person?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
