Comments on: = ≠ ⇒ http://blog.tmorris.net/%e2%89%a0-%e2%87%92/ The weblog of Tony Morris Sat, 04 Feb 2012 12:29:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Jang Bahadur http://blog.tmorris.net/%e2%89%a0-%e2%87%92/#comment-28898 Jang Bahadur Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:21:24 +0000 http://blog.tmorris.net/?p=485#comment-28898 <em>This comment has been removed by the author since it not useful.</em> This comment has been removed by the author since it not useful.

]]> By: Nx http://blog.tmorris.net/%e2%89%a0-%e2%87%92/#comment-28400 Nx Tue, 13 Jan 2009 17:30:01 +0000 http://blog.tmorris.net/?p=485#comment-28400 Yes, I don't think you can use "implies" because none of the items you're connecting are propositions. A proposition implies another. You could use, as pointed above, some set theory and logic: ((Windows belongs to Bad Things) and (Hitler belongs to Bad things)) does not imply (Windows is Hitler) Yes, I don’t think you can use “implies” because none of the items you’re connecting are propositions. A proposition implies another. You could use, as pointed above, some set theory and logic:
((Windows belongs to Bad Things) and (Hitler belongs to Bad things)) does not imply (Windows is Hitler)

]]> By: Thomas Danecker http://blog.tmorris.net/%e2%89%a0-%e2%87%92/#comment-28252 Thomas Danecker Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:15:57 +0000 http://blog.tmorris.net/?p=485#comment-28252 It's all about context. Who told you that the rules of logic apply to the postulation "windows = bad"? Nobody. You implied that from your context (you're a programmer, ...). Other people (with other contexts) look at the postulation in a different way. They transform the '=' to something that has more meaning to them (i.e. the word 'is'). So the postulation becomes "windows is bad". Yeah! "Interpreting content" is not a function that just takes the input as a parameter and creates an output but it has an additional parameter named "context". "It's in the eye of the beholder." It's fun to think in the meta-level and put logic into it. ;) ...and thereby being able to promote some out-of-the-box thinking. It’s all about context.
Who told you that the rules of logic apply to the postulation “windows = bad”?
Nobody. You implied that from your context (you’re a programmer, …).
Other people (with other contexts) look at the postulation in a different way. They transform the ‘=’ to something that has more meaning to them (i.e. the word ‘is’). So the postulation becomes “windows is bad”. Yeah!

“Interpreting content” is not a function that just takes the input as a parameter and creates an output but it has an additional parameter named “context”.

“It’s in the eye of the beholder.”

It’s fun to think in the meta-level and put logic into it. ;)
…and thereby being able to promote some out-of-the-box thinking.

]]> By: Jesper Nordenberg http://blog.tmorris.net/%e2%89%a0-%e2%87%92/#comment-25324 Jesper Nordenberg Mon, 15 Dec 2008 08:38:29 +0000 http://blog.tmorris.net/?p=485#comment-25324 "Bad" is a subjective property assigned to an entity by a person, so I would model it as a mapping "(Person, Entity) => SubjectiveQuality". “Bad” is a subjective property assigned to an entity by a person, so I would model it as a mapping “(Person, Entity) => SubjectiveQuality”.

]]> By: Alexey Romanov http://blog.tmorris.net/%e2%89%a0-%e2%87%92/#comment-25189 Alexey Romanov Sun, 14 Dec 2008 09:26:18 +0000 http://blog.tmorris.net/?p=485#comment-25189 Or bad(Windows). In order for Windows ⇒ bad to make sense, Windows should be a proposition. Or bad(Windows). In order for Windows ⇒ bad to make sense, Windows should be a proposition.

]]> By: Thom http://blog.tmorris.net/%e2%89%a0-%e2%87%92/#comment-25145 Thom Sat, 13 Dec 2008 20:01:22 +0000 http://blog.tmorris.net/?p=485#comment-25145 Wouldn't it make even more sense to say: Windows ∈ Bad Things ? :) Wouldn’t it make even more sense to say:

Windows ∈ Bad Things

? :)

]]> By: Chris http://blog.tmorris.net/%e2%89%a0-%e2%87%92/#comment-25094 Chris Sat, 13 Dec 2008 12:06:36 +0000 http://blog.tmorris.net/?p=485#comment-25094 "badness" is a property. it belongs to an object. it's not on the same level as objects, in that regard. you can't do boolean logic with an object and a property, only with objects and objects, or properties and properties. implication is just as wrong as equality. “badness” is a property. it belongs to an object. it’s not on the same level as objects, in that regard.

you can’t do boolean logic with an object and a property, only with objects and objects, or properties and properties.

implication is just as wrong as equality.

]]>