Spyke

Replies

cricket

Comment on

Woakes, Wood and Brook keep England's Ashes hopes alive

Great win for England but I’m concerned about Root and Bairstow. For two batsmen that we’re relying so heavily on along with Stokes, we haven’t seen much from them with the bat since Edgbaston (not to mention Bairstow’s poor performance behind the stumps). I have a feeling that if it’s going to be anything like 2019, we’ll need someone to step up at Old Trafford…

doom

Comment on

Your favorite WAD?

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.

cricket

Comment on

2023 Ashes 5th Test, Day 5 Highlights | Wide World of Sports

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.

cricket

Comment on

5th Ashes Test underway

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.

math

Comment on

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

Reply in thread

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:

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)