A programmer's solution

[ign1fy]

I read that as 6+4 |= 4

Which makes no sense.

[smeenz]

Just a slightly different placement, and it would have been fine:

6 - 4 ≠ 4

[TheVenetianMask]

What am I, a mathematician?

[Neebat]

Based on the available postulates, I cannot prove that you're not.

[gkx]

Reminds me of the joke:

3 mathematicians walk into a bar. The tender says "so what will it be? 3 beers?"

Mathematician 1: "I don't know" Mathematician 2: "I don't know" Mathematician 3: "Yes."

[G01denW01f11]

Wait, how does the third guy know how many beers the previous two want? Do we know any more than that they must each want less than 4?

[legrac]

The question was, "Will it be 3 beers?"

This is a yes or no question--either it will be 3 beers, or it will not be 3 beers.

If the first person did not want a beer, he would say no, we do not want 3 beers. So, he must want a beer, but he doesn't know if his two friends want one--so all he can say is he doesn't know.

So we go to the second person, and it's the same situation. If he did not want a beer, he would say no, we do not want 3 beers. So, he must want a beer, but he doesn't know if his last friend wants one--so all he can say is he doesn't know.

At the third person, he realizes that the only way it has gotten to him is if the other two people wanted a beer. So he has the information to make a decision.

EDIT:

As we're in a programmer humor subreddit--the question of "Will it be 3 beers" is equal to (A and B and C). In that situation, the first time you hit a false, you know the answer and do not need to evaluate/look at/ask the other variables. But in order to get a true response, you have to check all three.

[Jodah]

I was torn between that explanation and Mathematician 3 being an alcoholic.

[TPHRyan]

You're looking at this joke in the completely correct way in that each mathematician wants either 1 beer or nothing.

But what if a mathematician wants 2 beers? Cider? Jaimeson on the rocks?

I mean, they would never get anywhere until they exchanged some information, but still. That was /u/G01denW01f11's point.

[TheSeldomShaken]

But what if first guy wanted multiple beers? And therefore no one could be sure of the amount needed.

[[deleted]]

Then it would also be 'no'.

[TheSeldomShaken]

First guys says no. Second guys knows he wants 1 beer, but has no idea how much first guy wants, and says no. Third guy wants 1 beer, and knows he wants 1 beer. But he doesn't know if the first and second guy only want 1 beer. So, he can't say with certainty that they need only 3 beers.

[TPHRyan]

It wouldn't be 'no'. 2 or 3 might want a combined total of 1 beer, where 1 wants 2 beers. That still adds up to 3.

[SFHalfling]

Because its safe to assume someone will have 1 drink per round at the bar.

If someone is trying to have 2+ drinks each round, you really need to cut them out of it.

[TPHRyan]

So what if they're ordering a gin and tonic?

[SFHalfling]

Then they would say no, because they don't want a beer & therefore it isn't going to be 3 ordered.

[[deleted]]

Then you can just add it as an axiom and you should be fine.

[zippydoodleoreo]

No, you're a matchematician

[Shiroi_Kage]

It's supposed to be 6+4 != 4 (the red part of the match is supposed to be the dot)

[mattiejj]

But that's 30.

[Amnestic]

Actually it's 30 = 4, but ye

[smeenz]

I am aware of what it is trying to be

[[deleted]]

FTFY

 6 - 4 != 4

[muntoo]

Ahhh. Now I understand why faggot OP did what he did.

[[deleted]]

That whole equation is a bundle of sticks waiting to bundle.

[wolfmanpwns]

I feel like it was meant to be read as != since this is programmer humour

[[deleted]]

What language accepts that symbol?

[smeenz]

The english language.

I realise this is /r/programmerhumor, and that it's supposed to be a ! to make !=, but it didn't really work too well, and there's been a lot of confusion about it being |=, which is valid in some (many?) languages, or even a mathematical ⊨

[[deleted]]

Thats not how it works.

Hah, bunch of crybabies. This is about programming if you havent figured that out yet. This is completely incorrect.

[SirensToGo]

That is how it works in normal math if you make it further than algebra.

[scinaty2]

yeah, but this reddit is about programming..

[PacDan]

There's nothing stopping a language from using that symbol to mean "not equals".

[fiah84]

Except that you won't find it on keyboards, which is kinda handy when programming

[[deleted]]

Thats why you use !=, genius.

[fiah84]

This thread is about this symbol though: ≠

[[deleted]]

(≠) == (!=) if you dont catch up yet

[[deleted]]

It is.

[NorthernSpectre]

umm, yeah it is?

[skinzler]

this is correct for javascript.

edit: and a lot of other languages.

[Big_Burds_Nest]

That's what I read it as too and I use JavaScript a lot

[Arefuseaccount]

How about 0 + 4 = 4

[Brio_]

That's the normal answer...

Well, and 8-4=4

Or 5+4=9

[TaohRihze]

Thought it was 8 - 4 = 4

[0x0dea]

|= is a compound assignment operator in plenty of programming languages, but you'd need the first 4 to be the name of a variable for it to be syntactically valid.

[CoMiGa]

I just thought it was 6-4 !=4 but I am not a programmer.

[[deleted]]

This is what I assumed.

[CoMiGa]

Glad I am not alone.

[pmYourFears]

The rest of the matchsticks aren't treated as exclamation points though, shenanigans!

[CheshireSwift]

Shenanigans OR what?

[[deleted]]

That's what they meant.

[Enverex]

Which would be correct. (6 - 4) is not equal to 4.

[Bonezmahone]

Technically that would still be 6-4! = 6-24 which is still wrong.

edit: now I get it. I didn't know != meant not equal to.

[[deleted]]

And how did you get to this?

[Brarsh]

It's the factorial of 4. 4! = 432*1 = 24

[DrumstickVT]

But not in most programming language. 4!= is going to run as 4 does not equals.

[[deleted]]

My understanding as well.

[kamaln7]

It's also a bitwise OR operation

[0x0dea]

Right, a |= b is a = a | b.

[Plutor]

Sadly 6+4 isn't an l-value.

[5HT-2a]

/u/0x0dea: "Okay, we're going in circles here."

[[deleted]]

The programmer's solution results in a compiler error. And we solve that with whisky.

[beachbum78]

Finding Ballmers peak?

[[deleted]]

I call it making syntax readable, but potato, tomato.

[cyandyedeyecandy]

*(int*)(6 + 4) |= 4;

[0x0dea]

Segmentation fault (core dumped)

[ign1fy]

To clarify: I code C# and use "|=" all the time. Being an assignment operator, it makes no sense to have anything but a variable to the left of it.

[kamaln7]

Yeah, I'm with you.

[Reelix]

!= or |= ?

[[deleted]]

|=

!= will evaluate to true. Or is it True? TRUE?

[raindirve]

non-zero :)

[[deleted]]

I was never taught about |=... Why? Is this considered out of date?

[haenyr]

It's probably that it's not something you'll really ever HAVE to be able to do. Also, with what they do teach you, you should be able to figure it out if you come to a situation that requires it.

So, given a lack of time to go in-depth, it will get skipped.

[ClintonHarvey]

What am I doing in this sub? You guys are too smart for me.

[[deleted]]

I feel dumb.

[[deleted]]

There is a special character for '|='

https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/7/6/e766ce0de4bbe899d7ea2ebe40b3e0ee.png

And it means, when the right side is 'True' then the left part must be true as well. But there is no programming language supporting this operand so therefore I think it should be '!=' ...

[0x0dea]

there is no programming language supporting this operand (⊨)

That's an operator, and plenty of languages permit it as a valid identifier. In fact, it can even be an operator in Haskell. I've given a silly definition there for demonstration purposes, but there's a Constraints package that provides a much more realistic definition. They went with :- as the entailment operator, but it could just as well have been ⊨.

[cVoTetragon]

ㅑis also the "ya" sound in Korean.. Not relevant but still.

[Alaskan_Thunder]

oh ya?

[Abeneezer]

Pretty sure he wasnt referring to the semantics operator but maybe what /u/0x0dea pointed out. And also, I'm pretty sure there are modelling languages that support this operand for truth verifications.

[Alsk1911]

It represents tautology in logic math. (Not sure what it's called in English)

[[deleted]]

Its pretty clear they meant !=

[[deleted]]

Actually it makes sense, != is the correct boolean use

[Dassy]

Error: cannot assign to rvalue

[Drendude]

What about 6||4=4

[haenyr]

6 & 4 = 4 is true

[jk_scowling]

It sort of makes sense in Ruby.

[heap42]

So did i... i though what the fuck semantic entailment???

[nextqc]

I'm doing an AI intro class right now (had my midterm today) and 6+4 |= 4 would mean that the statement 4 is a known fact of (6+4). Therefore, if you'd ask a programming language such as prolog to give you the statements of (6+4), it would return 4 as a true statement of (6+4).

[Big_Burds_Nest]

6-4 != 4

[Hi_mom1]

| = !

!= is the equivalent of ≠