If you’re so good at logic, why do you think that adding events is the same thing as claiming two events occur simultaneously? Go back to “logic 101.” And my probability identity is not irrelevant. But what do I know? Those 40 math credits must have been wasted on me.
I had no idea this would be so controversial
Black Swan,
I understand that it only took you a week of studying to tackle level III but people need to study for Level I. Are you trying to prove that “Study = Fail.” If people continue getting distracted, you will prove your point.
I was just joking, thought it was a humorous feaux proof.
I’m just teasing you.
Good point. And you are right. Nevertheless, the proposed conclusion at the beginnig of this absurd topis is flawed. Let me put it this way, you cannot add two exclusive events and arrive at the proposed conclusion. No way. You are violating logic calculus rules, and, if for real, physics laws. All at the same time. To arrive at the proposed conclusion you have to assume that study and not study can occur at the same time, or are in fact the same thing. Which they cannot. So I restate, your probability identity is irrelevant here. And the conclusion reached is flawed and is not a tautology. A correct tautology would be (study implies pass) is identical to (notstudy implies fail). That’s it. You cannot reach the conclusion study implies fail, because you are ignoring the antecedent study implies pass. Wich, if assumed to be true, cannot be violated or you would be, in fact, assuming that study and notstudy are one and the same or concomitant at the least. So, yes, P(AB)=0 is relevant. Now, if you are going to try to prove otherwise, with your 40 credit maths courses and what not, go ahead.
Now, I know nothing of your academic background. I’m sure you worked your butt through college and I can certainly respect that. Whether the maths credits you took were wasted or not is your own problem. They aren’t proof that you are right and I’m wrong in this case, only that you took what appear to be advanced courses in college. Check that out in your logics handbook too.
Except that this is a proof by algebra, and there are no conditional statements. The other cool thing about my academic background is that it taught me to tear down arguments in one sentence instead of huge paragraphs.
Oh my, lenghty paragraphs to support argumentations are somehow diminishing of their worth. You’ll have to explain that one. This is getting better by the moment. It wasn’t even that long. C’mon.
So algebra it is. That makes it all different. Not.
No conditional statements?? Better check closer.
Study = pass
Not study = ~Study = Fail
Implied assumptions (i.e. conditional statements) in the stated exercise: Study = fail is not possible and Not Study = pass is not possible. I don’t need to see them written down to know that if you don’t assume these conditions exist you can’t even start solving anything. Because I assume Black Swan wasn’t just saying that 1=1 or was he? If he was, my apologies for wasting your time and mine. Because that’s the answer to Study = Fail. Study = ~Study = Pass = Fail. Somehow, I believed we weren’t here to witness the amazing properties of transitivity. My mistake if I was wrong.
Study + ~Study = Pass + Fail, So??? From here genius get me to Study=fail with your powerful algebra without telling me that 1=1. I already proved with my verbose paragraph that it wasn’t. You’ll have to do better than a one-liner and cool background statement. You can send me the book. I promise to read it to the last page.
Now, since It’s my own fault I let myself into this topic. With your permission, I will let myself out. Look forward to other debates.
You’re really bad at this, for what it’s worth.
I’ll give you a hint so it doesn’t look like I can’t tear down your argument again: No Study != the NOT operator applied to “Study.”
Look, don’t hint and pretend you teared down anything. You either lay it out or you stay home. If I’m wrong I’ll own up to it. Also, FYI != means unequal not NOT operator. But whatever.
Now I know how Einstein felt about his contribution to the Manhattan Project
jgorriz, you are out of line. This is a friendly place. Black Swan has helped hundreds of candidates including me with his insightful posts. While you are correct that the proof he presented is flawed, the way you reponsd to that is disrespectful.
This is further evidence that you don’t understand anything I say, so…
I see. As far as I recall, I am not the one inviting posters to GF themselves, and I don’t have the impression of having been more or less disrespectful than the person inviting me to do so. Anyhow, if Black Swan has felt in any way offended by my comments, I will kindly ask him to accept my apologies.