xkcd

by **rhomboidal** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:05 am UTC

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.

by **Eternal Density** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:07 am UTC

Reply to this thread IIF you love Formal Logic.

by **jpk** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:14 am UTC

Is he saying that only honkies dig formal logic?

by **ahammel** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:18 am UTC

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

by **Hamsvlekiss** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:22 am UTC

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－;)

by **dreamgear** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:28 am UTC

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?

by **Дерсу Узала** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:38 am UTC

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 over-honking.

by **Psykar** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:44 am UTC

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.

by **jdmulloy** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:46 am UTC

Why is 'if' spelled 'iff'?

by **jpk** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:47 am UTC

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 over-honking.

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.

by **jpk** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:48 am UTC

jdmulloy wrote:Why is 'if' spelled 'iff'?

in logic, "iff" signifies "if and only if".

by **glasnt** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 5:03 am UTC

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.}

by **pensive bosom** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 5:07 am UTC

Putting an imperative on the left side of a biconditional!? Is there actually a formal logic for that? I never got past Intro.

by **Turing Machine** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 5:09 am UTC

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.

by **Oflick** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 5:10 am UTC

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 over-honking.

Perhaps a better bumper sticker would be "honk iff you think whatever I just did was perfectly fine"?

by **webdude** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 5:13 am UTC

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!

by **n0etic** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 5:31 am UTC

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.

by **EPAstor** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 5:38 am UTC

Is there any chance of getting this bumper sticker printed? No, really. I'd buy 5-10 of them.

Every single one of my colleagues needs one. My advisor most of all.

by **Muz** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 5:47 am UTC

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?

by **gwillen** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 5:48 am UTC

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.

by **cookrw** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 5:58 am UTC

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

by **orangedragonfire** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 6:09 am UTC

The problem here would be that people who love formal logic would have to honk all the time. Forever.

by **eligitine** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 6:16 am UTC

I had to Google iff to understand the comic. That is never a good sign.

by **907Code-G** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 6:52 am UTC

Ah I forgot, xkcd is where I originally got my habit of using xor in conversations and intending or as an inclusive logic statement.

by **Sandor** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 7:03 am UTC

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.

by **Coyne** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 7:09 am UTC

Honk iff you don't honk.

by **jpk** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 7:11 am UTC

Coyne wrote:Honk iff you don't honk.

Gödel is my co-pilot

by **morric** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 7:16 am UTC

So if I see this bumper sticker and honk I must assume my significant other sitting in the co-driver's seat smacking me for the implications of my honking.

by **MartinN** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 7:17 am UTC

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.

by **Pfhorrest** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 7:31 am UTC

There actually are formal imperative (and deontic, which may or may not be the same thing) logics.

And present-tense 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, non-stop; 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, non-stop? Or, eat green vegetables whenever they eat? Or just, eat green vegetables sometimes, maybe frequently?

So, it-is-imperative-that(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.

by **Proginoskes** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 8:08 am UTC

Eternal Density wrote:Reply to this thread IIF you love Formal Logic.

That's IFF.

by **Pfhorrest** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 8:15 am UTC

And for the military logicians out there: IFF iff you identify as friend, not foe.

by **ricree** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 8:47 am UTC

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.

by **Steroid** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 8:50 am UTC

Honk <--> you prefer symbols.

Also, irrespective of the bumper sticker, that is a sweet ass-car.

by **Azkyroth** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 9:46 am UTC

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...

by **Gud** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 9:52 am UTC

I think making the implication explicit made this significantly less funny.

by **da Doctah** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 10:12 am UTC

907Code-G 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."

by **Brian-M** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 10:15 am UTC

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 worst-case 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.

by **Sabreblade** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 10:19 am UTC

EPAstor wrote:Is there any chance of getting this bumper sticker printed? No, really. I'd buy 5-10 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?

by **EdyScissorhands** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:15 am UTC

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.

Who is online