Skip Navigation
InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)PA
Posts
2
Comments
22
Joined
2 yr. ago
Source Ports @lemmy.sdf.org
Parsnip @lemmy.sdf.org

PrBoom+ (Doom)

A source port for Doom that supports vanilla and Boom formats. Fast and highly-configurable, my Doom source port of preference.

  • I was actually convinced at stumps on day 4 that Aus were going to win, but Eng managed to pull through in the end. Also glad this series is done, having an emotional connection to one of the teams playing in a Test series is fun, but gets quite stressful.

    However, I’m with Ponting that the ball change was poor and should be investigated. Shame one bad decision made such an impact on the game.

  • One day in, and with the way Australia have been carrying on I don’t think an English win is likely. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if we see the same scores from the last test, just with the teams swapped.

  • I’m not sure but could it be because, in your first truth table, you assumed the truth value of (a OR b) -> c to be true and you are finding the truth values of c that correspond with pairs of values of a and b?

    However, in the second table you are finding the truth values of ~(a OR b) OR c that correspond with truth values of c as well as a and b so just like you said, you cannot compare the two tables you present above.

    To get the truth table for the proposition (a OR b) -> c, you would find the corresponding truth values to those of a, b and c (like you did in the first table). Something like this:

     undefined
        
    A B C   A OR B   (A OR B) -> C
    000       0             1
    001       0             1
    010       1             0
    011       1             1
    100       1             0
    101       1             1
    110       1             0
    111       1             1
    
      

    since it’s possible for the conditional proposition to be false (i.e. if either A or B are true yet C is false)

  • Afaik they are equivalent since using the truth table of a conditional A->B, it’s false when A is true but B is false (like how a philosophical argument is invalid if the premise A is true yet the conclusion B is false) so ~(A->B) = A and ~B and A->B = ~A or B. Were you asking about something else?

  • math @lemmy.sdf.org
    Parsnip @lemmy.sdf.org

    Interesting logic proof: (a OR b) -> c = (a -> c) AND (b -> c)

    (a OR b) -> c

    = ~(a OR b) OR c

    = (~a AND ~b) OR c

    = (a OR c) AND (b OR c)

    = (a -> c) AND (b -> c) as required

    I haven’t formally learnt logic so I’m not sure if my proof is what you’d call rigorous, but the result is pretty useful for splitting up conditionals in proofs like some of the number theory proofs I’ve been trying. E.g.

    Show that if a is greater than 2 and a^m + 1 is prime, then a is even and m is a power of 2

    In symbolic form this is:

    ∀a >= 2 ( a^m + 1 is prime -> a is even AND m is a power of 2 )

    The contrapositive is:

    ∀a >= 2 ( a is odd OR m is NOT a power of 2 -> a^m + 1 is composite )

    and due to the result above, this becomes

    ∀a >= 2 ( a is odd -> am + 1 is composite ) AND ( m is NOT a power of 2 -> am + 1 is composite )

    so you can just prove two simpler conditionals instead of one more complicated one.

  • Sunlust ftw. Gorgeous maps (especially E3 maps) that force you to play outside your comfort zone.

    That and Plutonia, just because of Go 2 It, which is a genuinely fun map to play.