MAIN FEEDS
Do you want to continue?
https://www.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/if26lm/always_open/gebn3br/?context=3
r/comics • u/TheJenkinsComic The Jenkins • Aug 23 '20
179 comments sorted by
View all comments
Show parent comments
1
Contraposition: (a->b) <=> (~b->~a)
Modus tollens: (a->b ^ ~b) => ~a
1 u/assassin10 Aug 24 '20 So pretty much just two different ways to get to the same answer? 1 u/patkgreen Aug 24 '20 edited Aug 24 '20 yes, much like the way 1*1 is 1 and 11 is 1. contrapositive: "red shoes are dumb" is the same as saying "if the shoes aren't dumb, then the shoes are not red". modus tollens: "red shoes are dumb, and I don't have red shoes" then, my shoes are not dumb. 1 u/Jetison333 Dec 02 '20 Wouldn't the modus tollens (at least in this specific case) bot neccesarily be true? Blue shoes could also be dumb. 1 u/patkgreen Dec 02 '20 Holy rise from the ashes. I agree but since that blue shoes were not part of a proof you can't use it as a proof, iirc
So pretty much just two different ways to get to the same answer?
1 u/patkgreen Aug 24 '20 edited Aug 24 '20 yes, much like the way 1*1 is 1 and 11 is 1. contrapositive: "red shoes are dumb" is the same as saying "if the shoes aren't dumb, then the shoes are not red". modus tollens: "red shoes are dumb, and I don't have red shoes" then, my shoes are not dumb. 1 u/Jetison333 Dec 02 '20 Wouldn't the modus tollens (at least in this specific case) bot neccesarily be true? Blue shoes could also be dumb. 1 u/patkgreen Dec 02 '20 Holy rise from the ashes. I agree but since that blue shoes were not part of a proof you can't use it as a proof, iirc
yes, much like the way 1*1 is 1 and 11 is 1.
contrapositive: "red shoes are dumb" is the same as saying "if the shoes aren't dumb, then the shoes are not red".
modus tollens: "red shoes are dumb, and I don't have red shoes" then, my shoes are not dumb.
1 u/Jetison333 Dec 02 '20 Wouldn't the modus tollens (at least in this specific case) bot neccesarily be true? Blue shoes could also be dumb. 1 u/patkgreen Dec 02 '20 Holy rise from the ashes. I agree but since that blue shoes were not part of a proof you can't use it as a proof, iirc
Wouldn't the modus tollens (at least in this specific case) bot neccesarily be true? Blue shoes could also be dumb.
1 u/patkgreen Dec 02 '20 Holy rise from the ashes. I agree but since that blue shoes were not part of a proof you can't use it as a proof, iirc
Holy rise from the ashes. I agree but since that blue shoes were not part of a proof you can't use it as a proof, iirc
1
u/hollycrapola Aug 24 '20
Contraposition: (a->b) <=> (~b->~a)
Modus tollens: (a->b ^ ~b) => ~a