Wednesday, October 12, 2011

If Bill Tweeted what would he tweet (Steve Jobs Edition)

  1. A more nuanced view of Steve Jobs: here.
  2. A less nuanced view of Steve Jobs: here.
  3. The next Steve Jobs: here
  4. A very nice NON-Steve Jobs post here.
  5. Is this an appropriate use of logarithms? From Andrew Sullivan's Blog (the boldface is mine):
    In some ways, the emergence of a Republican candidate (Rick Perry) who takes every single aspect of George W. Bush's political persona and adds a logarithm, is a healthy sign. I'd rather have a candidate who is explicitly saying that his politics is based on religion and his political rallies are actually spiritual rallies, than one whose theocratically-driven conservatism is on the downlow.
  6. A type of Math Anxiety
  7. Should people learn math?
  8. The president invokes math: here
  9. A bad idea for a TV series: The intuitionist defense attorney: Just because you proved that A OR B did the crime, and then you showed NOT(A did it), does not mean that you have proven B did it.


  1. Criminal law would be a superlative place for intuitionistic, as opposed to truth, semantics!

    I have proved that A or B committed the crime. I have failed to prove that A committed the crime. Hence I do not conclude that B must have committed the crime.

  2. There is a large difference between failing to prove the A committed the crime and proving that A did not commit the crime.

  3. RE: #9, the defense could draw a venn-diagram. Of course, if it's a trial by jury... ooof... good luck. :(

  4. Since it's valid to infer B from "A or B" and "not A" in intuitionistic logic, perhaps a better line would be, "You've shown that assuming my client's innocence leads to a contradiction, but you haven't exhibited a witness to his guilt."

  5. How would they prove that "A or B" committed the crime? Prove is the strong word. If they have such evidence and known that A didn't do it, they would be able to simply present the evidence against B.

  6. Tweet #7 may be a set-up. Whatever the case, it is quite amusing.

  7. Keith Ramsey is right. From A \/ B, you do a case analysis.

    1) Case A. From A and A->False, you derive False. From False, you derive B.

    2) Case B is trivial.