1033: "Formal Logic"
Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates
 rhomboidal
 Posts: 801
 Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:25 pm UTC
 Contact:
1033: "Formal Logic"
Title Text: Note that this implies you should NOT honk solely because I stopped for a pedestrian and you're behind me.
Hey, I always mind my p's and q's while driving.
 Eternal Density
 Posts: 5590
 Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:37 am UTC
 Contact:
Re: 1033: "Formal Logic"
Reply to this thread IIF you love Formal Logic.
Play the game of Time! castle.chirpingmustard.com Hotdog Vending Supplier But what is this?
In the Marvel vs. DC filmmaking war, we're all winners.
In the Marvel vs. DC filmmaking war, we're all winners.
Re: 1033: "Formal Logic"
Is he saying that only honkies dig formal logic?
 ahammel
 My Little Cabbage
 Posts: 2135
 Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
 Location: Vancouver BC
 Contact:
Re: 1033: "Formal Logic"
It also implies:
~(honk & ~you love formal logic)
~(~honk & you love formal logic)
~(honk xor you love formal logic)
(honk & you love formal logic) V (~honk & ~you love formal logic)
But I should stop. I've just had a nightcap and you really shouldn't drink and derive
~(honk & ~you love formal logic)
~(~honk & you love formal logic)
~(honk xor you love formal logic)
(honk & you love formal logic) V (~honk & ~you love formal logic)
But I should stop. I've just had a nightcap and you really shouldn't drink and derive
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!
 Hamsvlekiss
 Posts: 46
 Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 3:58 pm UTC
Re: 1033: "Formal Logic"
ahammel wrote:It also implies:
~(honk & ~you love formal logic)
~(~honk & you love formal logic)
~(honk xor you love formal logic)
(honk & you love formal logic) V (~honk & ~you love formal logic)
But I should stop. I've just had a nightcap and you really shouldn't drink and derive
∑(－x－;)
Re: 1033: "Formal Logic"
But, you say I can/should honk if and only if I love formal logic. This doesn't mean I can't honk some more if you stop in the middle of the road (as long as I still love formal logic). No?
 Дерсу Узала
 Posts: 20
 Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 4:10 am UTC
 Location: СихотэАлинь
Re: 1033: "Formal Logic"
Someone might still honk because the driver stopped for a pedestrian, provided that the honker loves formal logic as well... In other words, I don't think this would be very useful in dissuading overhonking.
Re: 1033: "Formal Logic"
The roads would be much quieter.
Unless secretly everyone actually *does* love formal logic.
Or maybe people love honking so much that they will come to love formal logic so they can honk again.
Unless secretly everyone actually *does* love formal logic.
Or maybe people love honking so much that they will come to love formal logic so they can honk again.
Re: 1033: "Formal Logic"
Why is 'if' spelled 'iff'?
Re: 1033: "Formal Logic"
Дерсу Узала wrote:Someone might still honk because the driver stopped for a pedestrian, provided that the honker loves formal logic as well... In other words, I don't think this would be very useful in dissuading overhonking.
No, they'd honk just in the case that they are a lover of formal logic, regardless of the presence or absence of pedestrians. Assuming they're the sort of person who obeys bumper stickers, of course.
Re: 1033: "Formal Logic"
jdmulloy wrote:Why is 'if' spelled 'iff'?
in logic, "iff" signifies "if and only if".
Re: 1033: "Formal Logic"
I automatically read it as "if and only if", and on second reading thought he made a spelling error.
Woo discrete mathematics coming before english logic!
_{hi joee.}
Woo discrete mathematics coming before english logic!
_{hi joee.}
Hi joee! (origin story)

 Posts: 37
 Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 8:48 pm UTC
Re: 1033: "Formal Logic"
Putting an imperative on the left side of a biconditional!? Is there actually a formal logic for that? I never got past Intro.

 Posts: 98
 Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:48 am UTC
Re: 1033: "Formal Logic"
pensive bosom wrote:Putting an imperative on the left side of a biconditional!? Is there actually a formal logic for that? I never got past Intro.
No, there is not. It's just a joke.
Re: 1033: "Formal Logic"
Дерсу Узала wrote:Someone might still honk because the driver stopped for a pedestrian, provided that the honker loves formal logic as well... In other words, I don't think this would be very useful in dissuading overhonking.
Perhaps a better bumper sticker would be "honk iff you think whatever I just did was perfectly fine"?
Re: 1033: "Formal Logic"
I don't like formals; the costumes are illogical. I'd go to a formal iff my date/escort/significant other was worth all that trouble. Tie clasps are fine, but stays, studs and cumbersome bunds? Ugh!
Re: 1033: "Formal Logic"
If you love formal logic and you are driving, and you honk iff you love formal logic, you'd be honking your horn the entire time that you drive.
Re: 1033: "Formal Logic"
Is there any chance of getting this bumper sticker printed? No, really. I'd buy 510 of them.
Every single one of my colleagues needs one. My advisor most of all.
Every single one of my colleagues needs one. My advisor most of all.
Re: 1033: "Formal Logic"
Okay, so I'll be brave and be the first to say it:
Someone want to explain what formal logic is to those of us too stupid to get the joke?
Someone want to explain what formal logic is to those of us too stupid to get the joke?
Author of the Zeus Is Dead: A Monstrously Inconvenient Adventure, the epic comedic fantasy where reality TV heroes slay actual monsters and the Greek gods have their own Twitter feeds!
Website: Michaelgmunz.com Twitter: @TheWriteMunz Facebook: MichaelGMunz
Website: Michaelgmunz.com Twitter: @TheWriteMunz Facebook: MichaelGMunz
Re: 1033: "Formal Logic"
I have made this into an actual bumper sticker design, but I'm waiting to hear an ok from Randall before I start trying to sell it... I hope he checks his email.
Re: 1033: "Formal Logic"
Muz wrote:Okay, so I'll be brave and be the first to say it:
Someone want to explain what formal logic is to those of us too stupid to get the joke?
Here is a really good explanation:
http://www.mtnmath.com/whatth/node20.html
I was trolled by this, lol. The bumper sticker really isn't formal logic, and I got a little huffy for a second
 orangedragonfire
 Posts: 13
 Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 3:45 am UTC
 Location: It exists. Probably.
Re: 1033: "Formal Logic"
The problem here would be that people who love formal logic would have to honk all the time. Forever.
Re: 1033: "Formal Logic"
I had to Google iff to understand the comic. That is never a good sign.
I edit an unreasonable amount of times.
Re: 1033: "Formal Logic"
Ah I forgot, xkcd is where I originally got my habit of using xor in conversations and intending or as an inclusive logic statement.
Re: 1033: "Formal Logic"
orangedragonfire wrote:The problem here would be that people who love formal logic would have to honk all the time. Forever.
I suspect they would grow to hate formal logic after a while, for what it's done to their quality of life. Problem solved.
Re: 1033: "Formal Logic"
Coyne wrote:Honk iff you don't honk.
Gödel is my copilot
Re: 1033: "Formal Logic"
So if I see this bumper sticker and honk I must assume my significant other sitting in the codriver's seat smacking me for the implications of my honking.
Re: 1033: "Formal Logic"
Also, people who don't like formal logic probably don't understand it either (if you understand it, you like it), so they would honk anyway when you stop for the pedestrian.
Re: 1033: "Formal Logic"
There actually are formal imperative (and deontic, which may or may not be the same thing) logics.
And presenttense verbs are ambiguous as to whether they mean occasional or continuous action; if we know that Bob swims, do we know that he always swims, nonstop; or just that he sometimes swims, now and then? How about if Bob lives? Or if he owns something? If he eats? We judge from context because the grammar does not explicitly mark it.
It works just the same with imperatives. If you tell someone to eat green vegetables, are you telling them to always eat green vegetables? Continuously, nonstop? Or, eat green vegetables whenever they eat? Or just, eat green vegetables sometimes, maybe frequently?
So, itisimperativethat(you honk <> you love formal logic) could very well (and contextually, given what honking means, probably does) mean that, if you love formal logic, you should sometimes honk (for instance, now, when you read this sticker), and that if you were for any other reason to honk, you should do so only if you love formal logic.
It does not mean that everyone who loves formal logic should continuously honk so long as they love formal logic.
And presenttense verbs are ambiguous as to whether they mean occasional or continuous action; if we know that Bob swims, do we know that he always swims, nonstop; or just that he sometimes swims, now and then? How about if Bob lives? Or if he owns something? If he eats? We judge from context because the grammar does not explicitly mark it.
It works just the same with imperatives. If you tell someone to eat green vegetables, are you telling them to always eat green vegetables? Continuously, nonstop? Or, eat green vegetables whenever they eat? Or just, eat green vegetables sometimes, maybe frequently?
So, itisimperativethat(you honk <> you love formal logic) could very well (and contextually, given what honking means, probably does) mean that, if you love formal logic, you should sometimes honk (for instance, now, when you read this sticker), and that if you were for any other reason to honk, you should do so only if you love formal logic.
It does not mean that everyone who loves formal logic should continuously honk so long as they love formal logic.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy)  The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy)  The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)
 Proginoskes
 Posts: 313
 Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 7:07 am UTC
 Location: Sitting Down
Re: 1033: "Formal Logic"
Eternal Density wrote:Reply to this thread IIF you love Formal Logic.
That's IFF.
Re: 1033: "Formal Logic"
And for the military logicians out there: IFF iff you identify as friend, not foe.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy)  The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy)  The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)
Re: 1033: "Formal Logic"
orangedragonfire wrote:The problem here would be that people who love formal logic would have to honk all the time. Forever.
Not necessarily. Could be existential, in which case they'd just be obligated to honk at least once.
Re: 1033: "Formal Logic"
Honk <> you prefer symbols.
Also, irrespective of the bumper sticker, that is a sweet asscar.
Also, irrespective of the bumper sticker, that is a sweet asscar.
Re: 1033: "Formal Logic"
Nothing like the realization that the light has turned green but the driver ahead of me has decided to finish his/her masturbation session before pulling away from it to bring out that love of syllogisms...
Re: 1033: "Formal Logic"
I think making the implication explicit made this significantly less funny.
Re: 1033: "Formal Logic"
907CodeG wrote:Ah I forgot, xkcd is where I originally got my habit of using xor in conversations and intending or as an inclusive logic statement.
I've had this discussion about whether "or" in common discourse is inclusive or exclusive. Turns out it's both:
Exclusive: Mother to small child: "You may have one cookie or one candy bar before dinner."
Inclusive: Boss to employee: "If you show up to work drunk or naked I'll fire you."
Re: 1033: "Formal Logic"
If the goal of this is to discourage people from honking, it wouldn't be very effective. Even assuming that the person behind you understands it and doesn't love formal logic, there is no disincentive for him not to honk. The worstcase outcome for them is that someone might think they love formal logic.
A better sticker for this purpose would be "Honk if you're a racist pedophile rapist". It doesn't matter if they're guilty or innocent, they won't want anyone thinking that they're a racist pedophile guilty of rape, or even a rapist of racist pedophiles.
A better sticker for this purpose would be "Honk if you're a racist pedophile rapist". It doesn't matter if they're guilty or innocent, they won't want anyone thinking that they're a racist pedophile guilty of rape, or even a rapist of racist pedophiles.
Last edited by BrianM on Fri Mar 23, 2012 10:21 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
 Sabreblade
 Posts: 4
 Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:44 pm UTC
Re: 1033: "Formal Logic"
EPAstor wrote:Is there any chance of getting this bumper sticker printed? No, really. I'd buy 510 of them.
Every single one of my colleagues needs one. My advisor most of all.
Heck, I'd use mine as a door sticker  "Knock IFF..."  it'd help to keep me from being bothered from the applied mathemtician across the hall...
Personally I think this is my favourite comic for a while  certainly made me laugh the loudest.
da Doctah wrote:I've had this discussion about whether "or" in common discourse is inclusive or exclusive. Turns out it's both:
Exclusive: Mother to small child: "You may have one cookie or one candy bar before dinner."
Inclusive: Boss to employee: "If you show up to work drunk or naked I'll fire you."
Ah, I'm sure that turning up both drunk AND naked is fine, I cite the 9th amendment and my right to indecent exposure and public humiliation!
To help clarify on the issue of constant honking couldn't we include some kind of clause:
AND ∀x(Honk(x) → ((Duration(x) < 3seconds) AND ∀y(Honk(y)→(y=x))))
That might help?

 Posts: 4
 Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 10:58 am UTC
Re: 1033: "Formal Logic"
Regarding constant honking, there's also the possibility that there is feedback from the honking into the love for formal logic. I.E. honking for long enough causes one to no longer love formal logic and thus stop honking.
Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 102 guests