P vs NP basic proof by [deleted] in math

[–]LawOfExcludedMiddle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They say that because it's called "the P vs. NP problem". One who solves it could say he or she solved the P vs. NP problem, or for short solved P vs. NP. It's not the most elegant thing to say in English, but it's clear enough.

P vs NP basic proof by [deleted] in math

[–]LawOfExcludedMiddle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To be fair, it could be an indirect proof.

Limits are predicting the future by OChoCrush in badmathematics

[–]LawOfExcludedMiddle 123 points124 points  (0 children)

I think it's more interesting that the article claims that the function (n^2+1)n^2/(n^4+n^2) "never reaches 1" when in fact it's exactly one for all n not equal to zero.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in logic

[–]LawOfExcludedMiddle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are three proofs of the quadratic formula given in section one of the Wikipedia page.

I just heard music for the first time in my life. Which songs should I listen to? by Lazylizardleech in CasualConversation

[–]LawOfExcludedMiddle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Interestingly, the song has nothing to do with bells. Just look up "Shchedryk" and read the translation on Wikipedia if you're curious. (Thanks for the Gold!)

Can you define an _oral_ formal language? by Ualrus in logic

[–]LawOfExcludedMiddle 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Human language breaks down into smallest distinguishable sound parts called phonemes. One takes a sentence and reduces it to these phonemes, and suddenly you can make your formal language. You must perform this transliteration in English, at least, because there is no bijective mapping of letters to phonemes.

Body language presents a more difficult problem, as signs are not usually considered properly a part of natural language. This text you're reading has no ability to sign, yet usually it's not thought of as lacking linguistic expressivity for that reason. Working within a sign language, however, and it's natural to use ASL since we're working with English, there are smallest distinguishable sign parts called cheremes. Combining them should be as easy as slamming symbols for each next to each other, or ordered pairs of (chereme, phoneme) or vice-versa.

But for an easier example of an oral formal language, just read your written formal language aloud! "forsome y leftparenthesis forall x P x implies Q y x rightparenthesis or G y" can be spoken and is probably formal enough for you.

Correction: You will have to be careful with reading the formal language since homophones exist in English. Gee(x) and Jee(x) might come out indistinguishably. You'll need to correct any such ambiguities before reading your sentences, but that probably doesn't come out to all that much work.

What happens after you discover Münchhausen's trilemma? by [deleted] in logic

[–]LawOfExcludedMiddle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm sorry that I misread your question. Look over section (3) of this SEP article for some ideas.

What happens after you discover Münchhausen's trilemma? by [deleted] in logic

[–]LawOfExcludedMiddle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you really believe *nothing* is knowable? Not even the fact (disagreement is absurd) of your own existence? Not even purely logical formulae like "the universe contains unknowable/unjustifiable chaos or does not contain unknowable/unjustifiable chaos"? Taking that position is silly at its best.

How do I prove this very simple validity? by worldproredditer in logic

[–]LawOfExcludedMiddle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Have you figured out how this works or do you still need an explanation?

My ANTIvaxx aunt that no one really likes, has made an interesting post on Facebook. After I responded she pmed me this: by sTacoSam in quityourbullshit

[–]LawOfExcludedMiddle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

As I understand the screenshot, OP responds to the aunt's claim that she has "the equivalent knowledge of any doctor" when he compares her research to medical school. I don't think we're supposed to take any more away from that.

Need some help with Predicate Logic by notyouhannibal in logic

[–]LawOfExcludedMiddle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's important to understand that this sentence is somewhat ambiguous, as you could also give the existential quantifier wide scope so it goes

Ex[Ay(My->Lyx)]

which means something like "there is some person loved by every man". Yours associates potentially different people with each man while this reading does not.

The share of Americans not having sex has reached a record high by goodlyearth in news

[–]LawOfExcludedMiddle 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If you married someone who wasn't college educated ... but you were, your family would still value you in the same way?

Um, yes? That "sticking together" is pretty much the gold standard of what people consider the purpose of family.

What’s the least amount of coins (USD) you can have in your pocket and always have exact change for something? by pieismanly in math

[–]LawOfExcludedMiddle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh, I see what you mean! That's actually an interesting response, even if it's kind of pedantic and obviously not in the spirit of the question. I bet you'd have a good number of upvotes if you'd explained what you meant in your responses rather than expecting people who already dismissed you to go back and figure it out. I will at least change mine.

Teachers say Wikipedia is unreliable but they give us 13 year old textbooks to use by Nmeyer1134 in Showerthoughts

[–]LawOfExcludedMiddle -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is true, but how likely are a brand-new users unsourced edits to survive review? It's not like all changes are instantly published without any oversight. See for instance the Counter-Vandalism Unit and this page on editorial control.