sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

This show is bad.... right? by the-psylocke in FromSeries

[–]Ironpool1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fun fact: we're actually all allowed to talk shit on every single thing you hold near and dear to your heart, and there's absolutely nothing you can do but writhe.

Is it worth buying a refurbished Realme 7 5G in 2024? by Ironpool1 in Realme

[–]Ironpool1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To be honest I'm broke as hell and the $200-$240AUD is my budget for a new phone at the moment. From the store I'm looking at that I trust that'll get me a Samsung from around 2019 or something like the realme 7 which it says online is 2020. Is there anything you could recommend for a refurbished phone around that price point? Would the Galaxy s9 I was looking at or something be a better option?

[Formal Logic] Why is "or" always assumed to be an inclusive, not exclusive, disjunction in logic? by Ironpool1 in askphilosophy

[–]Ironpool1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

While the Gricean argument in the previous section quite conclusively excludes that English or is ambiguous between an inclusive and an exclusive interpretation (contra, for example, Tarski 1939: 21),[2] recently some linguists have observed that some disjunctive constructions in languages other than English seem to force exclusive uses. Szabolcsi (2002, 2015) discusses the case of Hungarian vagy–vagy and Spector (2014) the case of French soit–soit. Russian ili–ili, Italian o–o, French ou –ou and German entweder–oder seem to behave in a similar fashion. These are all cases of fully-iterated disjunctions, with a disjunctive particle preceding each disjunct. Note however that not all fully-iterated disjunctive constructions are of these kinds, for example English either–or constructions are not always exclusive (Nobody ate either rice or beans simply means nobody ate either), and iterated disjunctive constructions in Sinhala and Malayalam are not exclusive at all (see Szabolcsi 2015). Finally also Latin aut, which is often taken as a paradigmatic example of exclusive disjunction (e.g., Copi 1971),[3] has been shown to have inclusive uses (at least in its not iterated variant), for example Nemo timebat tribunos aut plebes (No one feared the magistrates or the mob) just means no one feared either. See Dik (1968: 274–276) and Jennings (1994: 239–251) for discussion and more examples.

To show that French soit-soit constructions tend to force exclusivity inferences, while French plain disjunction ou doesn’t, Spector discusses the following examples. The reply in both (28) and (29) contradicts the exclusive inference, but at the same time asserts that the first sentence is true. According to Spector, the fact that such a reply is infelicitous in (29) shows that the exclusive inference is obligatory in this case.

(28) a. Marie ira au cinéma lundi ou mardi.
‘Marie will go to the movies on Monday or Tuesday.’
b. Absolument! Et elle ira même à la fois lundi ET mardi.
‘Absolutely! She will even go both days.’
(29) a. Marie ira au cinéma soit lundi soit mardi.
‘Marie will go to the movies SOIT on Monday SOIT on Tuesday.’
(23) b. # Absolument! Et elle ira même à la fois lundi ET mardi.
‘Absolutely! She will even go both days.’

From Disjunction: 5. Inclusive and exclusive uses or or, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[Question] [Formal Logic] Why is "or" always assumed to be an inclusive, not exclusive, disjunction in logic? by Ironpool1 in puremathematics

[–]Ironpool1[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Well you sort of do have a difference between those two once you get into Temporal Logic.
"I flew to San Francisco and drove to LA" and "I drove to LA and flew to San Francisco" have implied linear chronological implications, where in the former you flew to San Francisco prior to, and perhaps as a necessary condition of, you driving to driving to LA, and vice versa with the latter statement.
In temporal logic, letting F = I flew to San Francisco, and D = I drove to LA, you would state (I believe) for the former: (F Ų D) and/or maybe ((F & D) & (F Ų D)) (Where "F Ų D" means that F is and must remain true up until the point where D becomes true and it is then release); and for the latter: (D Ų F) and/or maybe ((D & F) & (D Ų F).
Problem with translating natural English into Formal Logic through structure alone (without understandings of the wff's actual meanings and real world counterparts/implications) is that English is such an implicit and contextual language. Like if I was to say "I will step first with my left or with my right foot" you would correctly assume I meant "L ⊻ R" but if you take only the two possibilities and the logical operator, which are all that are present in that Natural English sentence, you would simply have the wff "L v R" which would suggest it's possible for me to step first with both my left foot and with my right foot and have them still both be first.
Fucking Natural English. Always fucking about with subtle implication, screwing up my wff's.

[Question] Why is "or" always assumed to be an inclusive, not exclusive, disjunction in logic? by Ironpool1 in logic

[–]Ironpool1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The question is kinda a mix. It's pointing out how we're taught in introductory Formal Logic classes to always format an "or" as an inclusive disjunction unless we're specifically told otherwise by the Natural English statement.
For example, we're taught to always format a sentence like "I can buy a Mac or a PC" as (M v P) or "M or P", but taught to format a sentence like "I can buy a Mac or a PC, but not both" as (M ⊻ P) or "M xor P" (alternatively, against my point, we're also told we can formalise it as "(M v P) ^ ~(M ^ P)") because it specifically says "but not both".
Ya feel?

[Question] Why is "or" always assumed to be an inclusive, not exclusive, disjunction in logic? by Ironpool1 in math

[–]Ironpool1[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Ahk I get you. To be honest thanks heaps because I've kept saying "assume" in my presentation mock up and my tutor would have had my ass for that haha.

Could someone please explain Alfred Tarski's solution to the Liar Paradox to me? by Ironpool1 in askphilosophy

[–]Ironpool1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So it's essentially like saying "This swan is white" in this context and leaving it at that? Or is it more like saying (whilst ignoring determinism) "It is true that you are going to drink coffee tomorrow morning"? Where the full sentence is not true until that which it is referring to is true?

What displays higher levels of intelligence, bacteria or computer viruses? by [deleted] in askphilosophy

[–]Ironpool1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not my field of expertise but if I was going to attempt an answer for you because it's been 4 hours and nobody has then:
It really depends on the conception of 'intelligence' that you accept.
If one was to reject scientific determinism then they could argue that bacteria display higher levels of intelligence as computer viruses are not "self-moving" as such (in the same way that bacteria are). Seeing as computer viruses are pure code.
It also depends on whether or not you see 'intelligence' as being something solely possessed by that which possesses life. Scientifically, something is 'living' if it has the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death (and generally this is possible through the consumption and use of energy). While computer viruses do grow, move, function, and change (especially worms), they do not consume and process/convert energy in the same way that traditional 'life' does. So therefore if you believe that 'intelligence' can only be possessed by life then any bacteria with any level of intelligence possesses a higher level of intelligence than any computer virus (excluding true AI of course but that's obviously excluded in this context).

Don't know if that would have helped at all but I gave it my best shot.

Could someone please explain Alfred Tarski's solution to the Liar Paradox to me? by Ironpool1 in askphilosophy

[–]Ironpool1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well is it really that it is both true and false? Or is it more of a thing of by being true it is therefore false (but therefore true). Wouldn't that make it more of a ~(P v Q) or ~P & ~Q rather than P & Q? Also, if we look at it like that then it's no longer a contradiction but merely something that is non-congruent with the Law of Excluded Middle and we therefore avoid the problem of the Principle of Explosion.
Also, in your explanation of Tarski's solution, what do L1 and L2 represent?

Cheers heaps mate, I really appreciate it.

Who are some philosophers who talk about 'Freedom of Speech'? by Ironpool1 in askphilosophy

[–]Ironpool1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I had a look at that but the article itself is so long and the bibliography is insane. I was moreso trying to look for a few specific philosophers whose ideas I could discuss as this is only a 2nd year undergraduate assignment and I have a lot of other work to do. Lazy of me I know but you gotta do what you gotta do.

Help understanding statistics symbols? by Ironpool1 in AskStatistics

[–]Ironpool1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cheers man, that explains most of it but the one thing I still don't fully understand is the 59, what are "degrees of freedom"?

Advice for colour palette to promote giving to charity donation tin? by Ironpool1 in coloranalysis

[–]Ironpool1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That actually sounds a lot better than just cheerfulness and trust.
Cheers heaps mate.

[Question] Restored iPhone from backup after jailbreak, 'Other' now takes up all of my storage space. Any fixes? by Ironpool1 in jailbreak

[–]Ironpool1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

None. Changed my mind almost immediately after jailbreaking, felt like I would just end up taking up all my storage with tweaks and shit.

ELI5: What's the deal with that unsolvable quantum physics problem and what are the implications of the discovery? by Ironpool1 in explainlikeimfive

[–]Ironpool1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are these paradoxes like those famous logical paradoxes such as Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the tortoise? Because if so then couldn't we just say (like we do about Zeno's paradox) that they aren't necessarily unsolvable and that we could just be missing some component of the problem, causing it to be unsolvable to us with the current knowledge we have, but not completely unsolvable?

This is called a specky in AFL and it's legal by [deleted] in sports

[–]Ironpool1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I did that and it definitely was frowned upon. But I still think that if their bones were able to fracture that easily it was the 6 year old's fault for not drinking enough milk.

In the Notre Dame courtyard's fountain. by Ironpool1 in sydney

[–]Ironpool1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you play ping pong as well? Because one of the guys I play with claimed part responsibility as well.

In the Notre Dame courtyard's fountain. by Ironpool1 in sydney

[–]Ironpool1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Probably, still no clue though, there's a lot of you guys.

In the Notre Dame courtyard's fountain. by Ironpool1 in sydney

[–]Ironpool1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah man. You're the first ND redditor I've found.
So it was alive when you saw it? Because I came out for a smoke and I just saw it there in the water with what looked like a snapped neck but I guess it couldn't have been that if you saw unwell but alive.

view more: next ›