I expected that downvote too. On Hacker News you have to pander to get points, but then you can spend them by saying interesting stuff.
I expected all of those downvotes, honestly.
Readit Newsthreepipeproblm commented on On null sicpers.info/2018/05/on-n... · Posted by u/ingve
Wow a downvote in less time than the linked video takes to watch... I am shocked by this. Just kidding I expected this. BTW if you don't like "mansplaining" you'll probably like the video.
I expected that downvote too. On Hacker News you have to pander to get points, but then you can spend them by saying interesting stuff.
Mainsplaining Manspreading https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoYu58tp3wc
Wow a downvote in less time than the linked video takes to watch... I am shocked by this. Just kidding I expected this. BTW if you don't like "mansplaining" you'll probably like the video.
Sorry if off-topic, but regarding the original post this if refering to:
Does anyone else immediately lost interest in the article at the word "mansplaining"? Like, why do we need tp bring this in a discussion about logic and theoretical cs? Also if you post something in a public manner and people state their disagreement, that's not mansplaining...
Mainsplaining Manspreading https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoYu58tp3wc
Calling something an anecdote is not saying it is untrue. Anecdotes can be entirely true yet still tell us nothing about the prevalence or significance of the described activity. And I never stated that the kind of activity described in your anecdote never happened. (Please provide a citation for this assertion.) I stated such activity was not the reason for the reduction in the population of indigenous Americans. Who do you think my ancestors are and why do you think this? My ancestors had nothing to do with any of this. And there is no such thing as moral purity, not that I would care about it if there were. What we like we call good (moral) and what we don't like we call bad (immoral) and that's the entire scope of what "morality" is. You should engage in some self-reflection and evaluation regarding your own poor reasoning abilities before criticizing those of others.
"As the people had no idea of germ theory, it is impossible to claim this was intentional."
threepipeproblm commented on Why dumb recruits cost the Army, big-time (2006) slate.com/articles/news_a... · Posted by u/gwern
Seeing as how those America First people are the ones who came around to fighting and defeating the Nazis, that's quite a disgusting and loaded remark. It is a shibboleth among the alt-right that they are called Nazis by people like you for sharing beliefs of their grandfathers who fought Nazis and you are reinforcing that perception.
But not a disgusting remark like when you stated that 'the "genocide" of native Americans was a result of European diseases, not barbarism' in another thread and argued that evidence of deliberate killing was more like a "rounding error". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17023220 Not disgusting like that, right?
Yes, the number killed by warfare is a rounding error in this context. And finding a single instance where someone suggested (there is no proof it was carried out) trying to infect the natives is an anecdote, not proof of a systematic program of biological warfare.
I just provided the historical evidence. It was written in the past tense. Do you think he fictionalized his account so that hundreds of years later you'd have a stronger argument on HN lol? Can you think of another reason to fictionalize such an account? Will be be ignoring the fact that just a few posts ago you maintained with equal confidence that this could not have happened at all?
More importantly, the argument that American settlers and later government policies deliberately exterminated large populations of natives does not even remotely rest on this. Are you really conflating them? Are you that ignorant of the history?
You also don't seem to understand the concept of genocide, the whole point of which is that it's extra bad to kill off a population as it gets smaller.
What a disgusting excuse for a thought process. What is it do you think that's wrong with you that gives you such a deep need to ensure that your ancestors were morally pure?
threepipeproblm commented on The Logical Disaster of Null rob.conery.io/2018/05/01/... · Posted by u/matthewwarren
Well guess what. Your "sense" of what "should" be in them has no place in computer SCIENCE.
Computer SCIENCE is that ugly thing that tells us that three-valued logic gives rise to 19683 distinct binary logical operators, while two-valued has 16.
Computer SCIENCE is that ugly thing that tells us that if you want a computer language over a three-valued logic to be expressively complete, then you need to implement all of those 19683 logical binary operators one way or another. In the worst case, that's 19683 operator names for the programmer to remember. And you come here claiming that it's "trivial" because you have a "sense" of what the results ought to be ? That proves just one thing but site policy probably won't allow me to spell that out.
(In case you were wondering what the 16 names are in two-valued logic : they aren't needed because the system being two-valued gives rise to certain symmetries that gracefully allow us to reduce the set we need to remember to just {AND OR NOT} (or some such) which beautifully parallels the way we communicate in everyday life.)
Ah, you seem to be a bit nutters. So I'm not going to engage further but I do want to give you a serious response to the argument you seem to be making.
First, the same argument above is also an argument that, say, integers, are not "Computer SCIENCE".
More to the point, you might enjoy reading the work of Charles Pierce and other logicians of that era who began to explore many variations on formal logic. Note that just as many operations arise from trinary relations in bivalent logic. Are binary relations "Computer SCIENCE", but not trinary or higher relations? Before you answer, you might want to look into whether all possible relations can be expressed using only binary relations (hint: nope).
Look deeper into the concept of functional completeness (with respect to a subset of operators), which you reference above without naming. You might be able to understand how many of those many trivalent operators are actually necessary to reason with (hint: not very many, hardly more than for bivalent logic, where, as you note, we only tend to use a few, and need not worry about it).
Consider also the relationship between operators folks have identified as useful in bivalent vs trivalent logic (hint: they not picking at random).
Could it be that just as with the 16 binary operators, many of which have relations to one another (e.g. inverses and complements, among others) that the trinary operators could fall into similar groups, which, making the 3^9 number you mentioned seem a whole lot less complex? Could that be why it's neither necessary nor customary to work with all the operators in either sort of logic?
Once you've caught up to state of the art in formal logic as of the 1930's you might have a new perspective -- perhaps you might even begin to let us know when "Computer SCIENCE" will catch up!
threepipeproblm commented on The Logical Disaster of Null rob.conery.io/2018/05/01/... · Posted by u/matthewwarren
Yeah and the results are so massively intuitive.
I suppose this is sarcasm but the results are quite intuitive to me. From my perspective, it's trivial to construct the truth tables for trivalent logic based on a sense of what "should" be in them. Maybe give it a try.
threepipeproblm commented on The Logical Disaster of Null rob.conery.io/2018/05/01/... · Posted by u/matthewwarren
Unknowns are not even remotely problematic for logic. Not only SQL, but illustrious languages such as VB6, include built-in trivalent logic.