Talk:1652: Conditionals - Revision history

4D4850 at 02:54, 22 July 2021

2021-07-22T02:54:00Z

108.162.238.221 at 03:20, 3 October 2019

2019-10-03T03:20:13Z

141.101.80.33: phone % solipsism = nil

2016-09-17T01:35:26Z

phone % solipsism = nil

These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For: Added comment

2016-03-12T03:13:22Z

Added comment

162.158.255.82 at 11:04, 11 March 2016

2016-03-11T11:04:20Z

162.158.253.6 at 23:06, 9 March 2016

2016-03-09T23:06:15Z

162.158.253.6: /* Thank you! */

2016-03-09T23:05:30Z

‎Thank you!

Davidy22 at 07:27, 9 March 2016

2016-03-09T07:27:31Z

162.158.176.77 at 05:30, 9 March 2016

2016-03-09T05:30:53Z

Davidy22 at 03:50, 9 March 2016

2016-03-09T03:50:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:54, 22 July 2021
Line 63:		Line 63:

	This made me think of the "Drinker paradox" [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.221\|108.162.238.221]] 03:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)		This made me think of the "Drinker paradox" [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.221\|108.162.238.221]] 03:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
		+
		+	Thing like this is why we should add iff and xor to general English vernacular. --[[User:4D4850\|4D4850]] ([[User talk:4D4850\|talk]]) 02:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:20, 3 October 2019
Line 61:		Line 61:

	The title text here, and in [[725: Literally]], may also reference Monty Python's [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTl9zYS3_dc 'Argument Clinic' sketch].[[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For\|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For\|talk]]) 03:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)		The title text here, and in [[725: Literally]], may also reference Monty Python's [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTl9zYS3_dc 'Argument Clinic' sketch].[[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For\|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For\|talk]]) 03:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
		+
		+	This made me think of the "Drinker paradox" [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.221\|108.162.238.221]] 03:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@@ Line 52: / Line 52: @@
 As an off topic, it would be interesting to see what modern solipsism supporters have to say about the usage of cell phone communications. If one were to spend all day alone say in a forest and talked to a bunch of people over cell phone for the whole day, what would that say about the existence of others outside the forest? Would other's existence still be unsure? Is talking to someone via a mechanical device validating or invalidating of their actual existence?
 [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 16:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
+:For them hard solipsists it is irrelevant if they experience another being face-to-face or over the phone. They cannot be sure the other person, the phone, and the surrounding woods, really exist. Both living and dead matter are experienced through unreliable senses. For us soft solipsists, it is also irrelevant if we talk to someone over the phone or face-to-face. We still can't know for sure if the other person have a mind, have consciousness (like I do), or if it is just a mindless animal, a robot (albeit with functional repertoire of feelings and ability to learn skills). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.33|141.101.80.33]] 01:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 The issue I have with this comic is that there isn't anything wrong with saying I'll be in the city tomorrow if you want to hang out. It's logically equivalent to (you want to hang out tomorrow) -> (I'll be in the city) which isn't equivalent to (you don't want to hang out tomorrow) -> (I won't be in the city). In fact the only other logical inference that can be made from this statement is (I won't be in the city) -> (you don't want to hang out tomorrow), or in English, if I'm not in the city tomorrow, you didn't want to hang out. The person can be in the city tomorrow in either case. {{unsigned ip|162.158.255.113}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:13, 12 March 2016
Line 60:		Line 60:

	Is it just me, or did Randall mis-spell IFF? {{unsigned ip\|162.158.176.77}}		Is it just me, or did Randall mis-spell IFF? {{unsigned ip\|162.158.176.77}}
		+
		+	The title text here, and in [[725: Literally]], may also reference Monty Python's [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTl9zYS3_dc 'Argument Clinic' sketch].[[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For\|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For\|talk]]) 03:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 The relevance-conditional that always gets me is "If you're interested in buying something, my name is X".  Always makes me think, "And what is your name if I'm just looking?" [[User:KieferSkunk|KieferSkunk]] ([[User talk:KieferSkunk|talk]]) 01:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 == Thank you! ==
@@ Line 54: / Line 56: @@
 The issue I have with this comic is that there isn't anything wrong with saying I'll be in the city tomorrow if you want to hang out. It's logically equivalent to (you want to hang out tomorrow) -> (I'll be in the city) which isn't equivalent to (you don't want to hang out tomorrow) -> (I won't be in the city). In fact the only other logical inference that can be made from this statement is (I won't be in the city) -> (you don't want to hang out tomorrow), or in English, if I'm not in the city tomorrow, you didn't want to hang out. The person can be in the city tomorrow in either case. {{unsigned ip|162.158.255.113}}
 Is it just me, or did Randall mis-spell IFF? {{unsigned ip|162.158.176.77}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:06, 9 March 2016
Line 38:		Line 38:


−	[http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Proposals#Adding_Ratings_for_Explanations Add you comment here] if you think that every explanation should be this well written [[Special:Contributions/162.158.253.6\|162.158.253.6]] 23:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)	+	+1 -- [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Proposals#Adding_Ratings_for_Explanations Add you comment here] if you think that every explanation should be this well written [[Special:Contributions/162.158.253.6\|162.158.253.6]] 23:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

	----		----

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:05, 9 March 2016
Line 36:		Line 36:

	+1! This is one of the best (clearest, succinct, well written) explanations on this site. Kudos to all who participated. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.40\|108.162.221.40]] 14:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)		+1! This is one of the best (clearest, succinct, well written) explanations on this site. Kudos to all who participated. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.40\|108.162.221.40]] 14:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
		+
		+
		+	[http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Proposals#Adding_Ratings_for_Explanations Add you comment here] if you think that every explanation should be this well written [[Special:Contributions/162.158.253.6\|162.158.253.6]] 23:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
		+
	----		----

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 The title text... So he should both stop being pedantic in general and stop caring about conditionals in particular. What is it he does in the title text... the current explanation of that part is not clear to me. Is it completely clear who speaks which line in the title text...? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 15:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 :It is fairly obvious that the line "If you're done being pedantic, we should get dinner," is provided by Cueball's friend, as it is already established that Cueball was the one being pedantic about conditionals in the first place. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.12|108.162.216.12]] 15:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
@@ Line 52: / Line 50: @@
 The issue I have with this comic is that there isn't anything wrong with saying I'll be in the city tomorrow if you want to hang out. It's logically equivalent to (you want to hang out tomorrow) -> (I'll be in the city) which isn't equivalent to (you don't want to hang out tomorrow) -> (I won't be in the city). In fact the only other logical inference that can be made from this statement is (I won't be in the city) -> (you don't want to hang out tomorrow), or in English, if I'm not in the city tomorrow, you didn't want to hang out. The person can be in the city tomorrow in either case. {{unsigned ip|162.158.255.113}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:30, 9 March 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	Is it just me, or did Randall mis-spell IFF?
		+
	The title text... So he should both stop being pedantic in general and stop caring about conditionals in particular. What is it he does in the title text... the current explanation of that part is not clear to me. Is it completely clear who speaks which line in the title text...? --[[User:Kynde\|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde\|talk]]) 15:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)		The title text... So he should both stop being pedantic in general and stop caring about conditionals in particular. What is it he does in the title text... the current explanation of that part is not clear to me. Is it completely clear who speaks which line in the title text...? --[[User:Kynde\|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde\|talk]]) 15:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
	:It is fairly obvious that the line "If you're done being pedantic, we should get dinner," is provided by Cueball's friend, as it is already established that Cueball was the one being pedantic about conditionals in the first place. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.12\|108.162.216.12]] 15:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)		:It is fairly obvious that the line "If you're done being pedantic, we should get dinner," is provided by Cueball's friend, as it is already established that Cueball was the one being pedantic about conditionals in the first place. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.12\|108.162.216.12]] 15:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:50, 9 March 2016
Line 49:		Line 49:


−	The issue I have with this comic is that there isn't anything wrong with saying I'll be in the city tomorrow if you want to hang out. It's logically equivalent to (you want to hang out tomorrow) -> (I'll be in the city) which isn't equivalent to (you don't want to hang out tomorrow) -> (I won't be in the city). In fact the only other logical inference that can be made from this statement is (I won't be in the city) -> (you don't want to hang out tomorrow), or in English, if I'm not in the city tomorrow, you didn't want to hang out. The person can be in the city tomorrow in either case.	+	The issue I have with this comic is that there isn't anything wrong with saying I'll be in the city tomorrow if you want to hang out. It's logically equivalent to (you want to hang out tomorrow) -> (I'll be in the city) which isn't equivalent to (you don't want to hang out tomorrow) -> (I won't be in the city). In fact the only other logical inference that can be made from this statement is (I won't be in the city) -> (you don't want to hang out tomorrow), or in English, if I'm not in the city tomorrow, you didn't want to hang out. The person can be in the city tomorrow in either case. {{unsigned ip\|162.158.255.113}}