this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2024
235 points (93.7% liked)

Science Memes

11408 readers
1034 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Yes, I know, that's the point. Funky is specifically constructed to always return 0. Then we assume "if" and "if, and only if" are equivalent and by following that assumption to its logical conclusion, we deduce that funky returns 1. Therefore, our assumption was incorrect because 0≠1. It follows that "if" isn't equivalent to "if, and only if". Also, it's just a shitpost.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

If reading the code as non-programming logic, that conclusion makes sense, yes. However, if, in most syntaxes, is a type of flow control. What it wraps has no meaning to the if statement itself. Reading it through the lens of an interpreter/compiler makes it clear. The statement is approximately:

If and only if a is equal to 1, do the thing {
  The thing is: assign the variable b with the value 1
}

To one not familiar with how programs are executed, it would make sense that the return value could be 1. But understanding how flow control works in programming, makes this interpretation a challenge.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't think you're picking up what I'm putting down. I'm not arguing that the return value can be 1, I'm well aware that it can't — I wrote the function so that it will always return 0. It only returns 1 if we make an incorrect assumption (and mix up semantics with formal logic, but that's another conversation), the incorrect assumption being "if is equivalent to if, and only if"

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Sorry! I sometimes get carried away on correctness.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I mean, making an assumption and arriving to a contradiction is as correct as a proof gets.