Topic: Attention masters of rhetoric
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #811
I know at least one of you claims to have taken a course in basic logic, but this applies to everyone who believes they've mastered rhetoric.
Here's your task: indicate which of the following statements are tautologies.
∀x(P(x)∨Q(X))⇔∀xP(x)∨∀xQ(X)
∀x(P(x)∧Q(X))⇔∀xP(x)∧∀xQ(X)
∀x(P(x)→Q(X))⇔∀xP(x)→∀xQ(X)
No need for proofs, but at least describe your reasoning so I know you aren't guessing. The answers to these should be immediately obvious to anyone whose taken a course in logic or really understands rhetorical thinking.
Here's your task: indicate which of the following statements are tautologies.
∀x(P(x)∨Q(X))⇔∀xP(x)∨∀xQ(X)
∀x(P(x)∧Q(X))⇔∀xP(x)∧∀xQ(X)
∀x(P(x)→Q(X))⇔∀xP(x)→∀xQ(X)
No need for proofs, but at least describe your reasoning so I know you aren't guessing. The answers to these should be immediately obvious to anyone whose taken a course in logic or really understands rhetorical thinking.
Kody R. Bearâ„¢ !!F0+vKzoih joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #15,573
B is the right one
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 56 seconds later, 2 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #15,576
@previous (Kody R. Bearâ„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
> at least describe your reasoning so I know you aren't guessing
> at least describe your reasoning so I know you aren't guessing
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 12 seconds later, 2 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #15,577
Fuck, it's been like a full year since my logic course. I don't know.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #15,582
@OP
The first is an obvious logical fallacy. You should have ruled that out.
The first is an obvious logical fallacy. You should have ruled that out.
(Edited 18 seconds later.)
Ninjj !nuPIzzAD4Y joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 35 seconds later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #15,585
I clicked.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #15,588
Anyone else? I'll reveal the answers soon.
(Edited 9 seconds later.)
Kody R. Bearâ„¢ !!F0+vKzoih replied with this 15 years ago, 52 seconds later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #15,589
B is correct, because of the Distributive Property.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #15,593
I just noticed the unicode isn't displaying for B correctly on my browser. It's supposed to be P(x) AND Q(x)
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 33 seconds later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #15,595
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #15,604
@previous (D)
Old browsers: they just don't work.
I'll be back in like 30 minutes, maybe a little while longer.
Anyone else is free to give it a go! And anon D, you didn't state your position on B and C, you only mentioned A.
Old browsers: they just don't work.
I'll be back in like 30 minutes, maybe a little while longer.
Anyone else is free to give it a go! And anon D, you didn't state your position on B and C, you only mentioned A.
Falco !MzQCNUfXbc joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #15,723
@OP
> I know at least one of you claims to have taken a course in basic logic, but this applies to everyone who believes they've mastered rhetoric.
>
> Here's your task: indicate which of the following statements are tautologies.
> ∀x(P(x)∨Q(X))⇔∀xP(x)∨∀xQ(X)
> ∀x(P(x)∧Q(X))⇔∀xP(x)∧∀xQ(X)
> ∀x(P(x)→Q(X))⇔∀xP(x)→∀xQ(X)
>
> No need for proofs, but at least describe your reasoning so I know you aren't guessing. The answers to these should be immediately obvious to anyone whose taken a course in logic or really understands rhetorical thinking.
WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS SHIT
> I know at least one of you claims to have taken a course in basic logic, but this applies to everyone who believes they've mastered rhetoric.
>
> Here's your task: indicate which of the following statements are tautologies.
> ∀x(P(x)∨Q(X))⇔∀xP(x)∨∀xQ(X)
> ∀x(P(x)∧Q(X))⇔∀xP(x)∧∀xQ(X)
> ∀x(P(x)→Q(X))⇔∀xP(x)→∀xQ(X)
>
> No need for proofs, but at least describe your reasoning so I know you aren't guessing. The answers to these should be immediately obvious to anyone whose taken a course in logic or really understands rhetorical thinking.
WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS SHIT
RedFox !rFox/iQSaQ joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 20 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #15,741
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 15 hours later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #16,276
Okay. I guess no one else wants to join in.
Turns out every single one of you is wrong not that surprising. It is only "A" that is a tautology. I can provide a proof, but if you think about it intuitively, you'll see that this is obvious.
Turns out every single one of you is wrong not that surprising. It is only "A" that is a tautology. I can provide a proof, but if you think about it intuitively, you'll see that this is obvious.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #16,279
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #16,282
@previous (H)
I already knew the answers. But a few people have suggested that many of the posters here are intelligent and knowledgeable about rhetoric and logic and that they are just trolling 99% of the time, I decided to put it to the test. And not a single person was even able to guess correctly.
I already knew the answers. But a few people have suggested that many of the posters here are intelligent and knowledgeable about rhetoric and logic and that they are just trolling 99% of the time, I decided to put it to the test. And not a single person was even able to guess correctly.
Bobby2Sox !dinhUJfbqA joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #16,284
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #16,285
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #16,291
@16,284 (Bobby2Sox !dinhUJfbqA)
> I was nearly right cos I hadn't a clue what you were on about
You are correct. Under the axioms of fuzzy logic: by not being incorrect you are more correct than if you were explicitly incorrect.
> I was nearly right cos I hadn't a clue what you were on about
You are correct. Under the axioms of fuzzy logic: by not being incorrect you are more correct than if you were explicitly incorrect.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 41 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #16,292
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #16,295
Bobby2Sox !dinhUJfbqA replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #16,299
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #16,303
@OP
Could tell us why, in your own words, you feel A is a tautology. Feel free to use some examples.
Could tell us why, in your own words, you feel A is a tautology. Feel free to use some examples.
Bobby2Sox !dinhUJfbqA replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #16,313
"Either it will rain tomorrow or it won't rain tomorrow." Needless repetition whether the statement be true or not.