7 ms·
If you define "No meetings" as !meetings, and "No communication" as !communcation, which to me sounds reasonable, then they are in fact equivalent. This become
by ninh 14y ago
If you define "No meetings" as !meetings, and "No communication" as !communcation, which to me sounds reasonable, then they are in fact equivalent.
This becomes apparent when you create a truth table for it:
!meetings != !communication
meetings | communication | expr
F | F | F
T | T | F
T | F | T
F | T | T
This is the same truth table one would get with "meetings != communication" so they should be logically equivalent.
- lifeformed 14y agoBut in dealing with language here, there are subtle differences in connotation between the two options. Just like how saying "not bad" isn't that same as saying "good".
- cbs 14y agoBut in dealing with language here, there are subtle differences in connotation between the two options. We're not dealing in language, formal symbols exist to remove the ambiguity of language. Plain and simple, the symbols used don't mean what the poster thinks they mean.
- hackinthebochs 14y agoThe symbols are simply shorthand. Trying to parse it as a mathematical equation was your mistake, not his.
- cbs 14y agoPies and cactus. Jackalope. If you read the above as anything other than a nuanced and well reasoned response thats your mistake, not mine.
- petercooper 14y ago"No meetings != no communication" is analogous to saying "Without meetings, people may still be communicating." "Meetings != communication" is analogous to saying "At meetings, communication doesn't necessarily occur." In terms you would personally appreciate: (No Patrick Hernandez != No Dancing) similarly is not equivalent to (Patrick Hernandez != Dancing) One says without Patrick Hernandez, there may be dancing. The other says with Patrick Hernandez there certainly is not any dancing ;-)
- ninh 14y agoYou're referring to implication then, i.e. P => Q <=> !P || Q and in that case, I definitely agree. ;-) That's also why I started my comment with a propositional "if" on how one could define "no meetings" and "no communication" to show that there is something to be said for the P != Q interpretation. In short, I believe neilk should have used => instead of !=. Or just plain english. ;-)
- Evbn 14y agoYou can't replace a complex concept with a boolean. This isn't JavaScript.