- A more nuanced view of Steve Jobs: here.
- A less nuanced view of Steve Jobs: here.
- The next Steve Jobs: here
- A very nice NON-Steve Jobs post here.
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.
- A type of Math Anxiety
- Should people learn math?
- The president invokes math: here
- 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.
Computational Complexity and other fun stuff in math and computer science from Lance Fortnow and Bill Gasarch
Google Analytics and Mathjax
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
If Bill Tweeted what would he tweet (Steve Jobs Edition)
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Criminal law would be a superlative place for intuitionistic, as opposed to truth, semantics!ReplyDelete
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.
There is a large difference between failing to prove the A committed the crime and proving that A did not commit the crime.ReplyDelete
RE: #9, the defense could draw a venn-diagram. Of course, if it's a trial by jury... ooof... good luck. :(ReplyDelete
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."ReplyDelete
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.ReplyDelete
Tweet #7 may be a set-up. Whatever the case, it is quite amusing.ReplyDelete
Keith Ramsey is right. From A \/ B, you do a case analysis.ReplyDelete
1) Case A. From A and A->False, you derive False. From False, you derive B.
2) Case B is trivial.