iHate, ~EFF~, VeryBad

[DeletedUser]

If either side had half a brain they would truce and turn on East.

dunnae know 'bout turnin against EAST, but this war has proven mo' useless ta both sides, specially da aggressor. Even if'n they do get rid o' da dozen NotBad members, they be far behind enough ta be overwhelmed by all da othar competition 'round'em.


Howevarrr, with our history in iHate diplomacy, dunnae know how much NotBad leadership would trust further relations.

 

[DeletedUser]

If either side had half a brain they would truce and turn on East.

Maybe I'm wrong here, but aren't truces usually agreed upon by both parties?

A = "NotBad + allies have half a brain."
B = "iHate + allies have half a brain."
C = "NotBad + iHate truce."
D = "NotBad + iHate turn on East."

Your sentence can be broken down into...
(A v B) -> (C ^ D)

Which also reads as ~(C ^ D) -> ~(A v B) (If NotBad and iHate don't truce and turn on East, it is not true that either side has half a brain)
Now, lets work with the understanding that if to have a truce, both sides must agree to it.

E = "NotBad agrees to truce."
F = "iHate agrees to truce."

It's worth pointing out that what we're stating is to be written as C == (E ^ F) (NotBad and iHate truce if and only if NotBad and iHate both agree to the truce.)

So now we've laid out a portion of our ground rules.

1. (A v B) -> (C ^ D)
2. C == (E ^ F)

Let us tackle the obvious assumption in Matt's post: having a brain and agreeing to a truce are one in the same.

A == E
B == F

With these four rules, we can do a little substitution and come to...
(A v B) -> [(E ^ F) ^ D]... And further more on to...
(A v B) -> [(A ^ B) ^ D]... Which translates as "If either side has half a brain, then both sides have half a brain and they turn on East."

Now, this is a lot of work to point out the obvious, but I thought breaking it down might help point out the horrible assumption being made here. Obviously, one side having half a brain does not mean that both sides have a brain nor that they go to war on East.

But lets come back around to where we started. Using Modus Tollens on the equation turns it into ~[(A ^ B) ^ D] -> ~(A v B), which states that "If it is not true that both sides have a brain and they turn on East, then it is not true that either sides have half a brain." Which is saying the same thing as the previously pointed out horrible assumption, just in different words... This is also, as is worth mentioning, the same thing Matt said in his previous post, only rewritten in language more accepted and easily understood for logical proofs.

So, Matt, what I'm trying to say is, no, you are absolutely wrong and your statement shows a horrible lack of logical understanding.

 

[DeletedUser104138]

Maybe I'm wrong here, but aren't truces usually agreed upon by both parties?

A = "NotBad + allies have half a brain."
B = "iHate + allies have half a brain."
C = "NotBad + iHate truce."
D = "NotBad + iHate turn on East."

Your sentence can be broken down into...
(A v B) -> (C ^ D)

Which also reads as ~(C ^ D) -> ~(A v B) (If NotBad and iHate don't truce and turn on East, it is not true that either side has half a brain)
Now, lets work with the understanding that if to have a truce, both sides must agree to it.

E = "NotBad agrees to truce."
F = "iHate agrees to truce."

It's worth pointing out that what we're stating is to be written as C == (E ^ F) (NotBad and iHate truce if and only if NotBad and iHate both agree to the truce.)

So now we've laid out a portion of our ground rules.

1. (A v B) -> (C ^ D)
2. C == (E ^ F)

Let us tackle the obvious assumption in Matt's post: having a brain and agreeing to a truce are one in the same.

A == E
B == F

With these four rules, we can do a little substitution and come to...
(A v B) -> [(E ^ F) ^ D]... And further more on to...
(A v B) -> [(A ^ B) ^ D]... Which translates as "If either side has half a brain, then both sides have half a brain and they turn on East."

Now, this is a lot of work to point out the obvious, but I thought breaking it down might help point out the horrible assumption being made here. Obviously, one side having half a brain does not mean that both sides have a brain nor that they go to war on East.

But lets come back around to where we started. Using Modus Tollens on the equation turns it into ~[(A ^ B) ^ D] -> ~(A v B), which states that "If it is not true that both sides have a brain and they turn on East, then it is not true that either sides have half a brain." Which is saying the same thing as the previously pointed out horrible assumption, just in different words... This is also, as is worth mentioning, the same thing Matt said in his previous post, only rewritten in language more accepted and easily understood for logical proofs.

So, Matt, what I'm trying to say is, no, you are absolutely wrong and your statement shows a horrible lack of logical understanding.

Yeah what he said ^

 

[DeletedUser]

Maybe I'm wrong here, but aren't truces usually agreed upon by both parties?

A = "NotBad + allies have half a brain."
B = "iHate + allies have half a brain."
C = "NotBad + iHate truce."
D = "NotBad + iHate turn on East."

Your sentence can be broken down into...
(A v B) -> (C ^ D)

Which also reads as ~(C ^ D) -> ~(A v B) (If NotBad and iHate don't truce and turn on East, it is not true that either side has half a brain)
Now, lets work with the understanding that if to have a truce, both sides must agree to it.

E = "NotBad agrees to truce."
F = "iHate agrees to truce."

It's worth pointing out that what we're stating is to be written as C == (E ^ F) (NotBad and iHate truce if and only if NotBad and iHate both agree to the truce.)

So now we've laid out a portion of our ground rules.

1. (A v B) -> (C ^ D)
2. C == (E ^ F)

Let us tackle the obvious assumption in Matt's post: having a brain and agreeing to a truce are one in the same.

A == E
B == F

With these four rules, we can do a little substitution and come to...
(A v B) -> [(E ^ F) ^ D]... And further more on to...
(A v B) -> [(A ^ B) ^ D]... Which translates as "If either side has half a brain, then both sides have half a brain and they turn on East."

Now, this is a lot of work to point out the obvious, but I thought breaking it down might help point out the horrible assumption being made here. Obviously, one side having half a brain does not mean that both sides have a brain nor that they go to war on East.

But lets come back around to where we started. Using Modus Tollens on the equation turns it into ~[(A ^ B) ^ D] -> ~(A v B), which states that "If it is not true that both sides have a brain and they turn on East, then it is not true that either sides have half a brain." Which is saying the same thing as the previously pointed out horrible assumption, just in different words... This is also, as is worth mentioning, the same thing Matt said in his previous post, only rewritten in language more accepted and easily understood for logical proofs.

So, Matt, what I'm trying to say is, no, you are absolutely wrong and your statement shows a horrible lack of logical understanding.

guess who been doin his homework?!

 

[mattcurr]

[Spoil]Maybe I'm wrong here, but aren't truces usually agreed upon by both parties?

A = "NotBad + allies have half a brain."
B = "iHate + allies have half a brain."
C = "NotBad + iHate truce."
D = "NotBad + iHate turn on East."

Your sentence can be broken down into...
(A v B) -> (C ^ D)

Which also reads as ~(C ^ D) -> ~(A v B) (If NotBad and iHate don't truce and turn on East, it is not true that either side has half a brain)
Now, lets work with the understanding that if to have a truce, both sides must agree to it.

E = "NotBad agrees to truce."
F = "iHate agrees to truce."

It's worth pointing out that what we're stating is to be written as C == (E ^ F) (NotBad and iHate truce if and only if NotBad and iHate both agree to the truce.)

So now we've laid out a portion of our ground rules.

1. (A v B) -> (C ^ D)
2. C == (E ^ F)

Let us tackle the obvious assumption in Matt's post: having a brain and agreeing to a truce are one in the same.

A == E
B == F

With these four rules, we can do a little substitution and come to...
(A v B) -> [(E ^ F) ^ D]... And further more on to...
(A v B) -> [(A ^ B) ^ D]... Which translates as "If either side has half a brain, then both sides have half a brain and they turn on East."

Now, this is a lot of work to point out the obvious, but I thought breaking it down might help point out the horrible assumption being made here. Obviously, one side having half a brain does not mean that both sides have a brain nor that they go to war on East.

But lets come back around to where we started. Using Modus Tollens on the equation turns it into ~[(A ^ B) ^ D] -> ~(A v B), which states that "If it is not true that both sides have a brain and they turn on East, then it is not true that either sides have half a brain." Which is saying the same thing as the previously pointed out horrible assumption, just in different words... This is also, as is worth mentioning, the same thing Matt said in his previous post, only rewritten in language more accepted and easily understood for logical proofs.

So, Matt, what I'm trying to say is, no, you are absolutely wrong and your statement shows a horrible lack of logical understanding.[/spoil]

[1:39:13 PM] Matt!?!: granted not my inital thoughts
[1:39:19 PM] Matt!?!: but your post is logically wrong
[1:39:22 PM] Matt!?!: in terms of its proof
[1:39:36 PM] Matt!?!: which ever one of you was posting ont hat account ;P
[1:39:56 PM] Matt!?!: you took an assumption that both tribes need to turn on east
[1:40:13 PM] Matt!?!: and that both sides needed half a brain to come to a truce
[1:40:33 PM] Matt!?!: one side with half a brain could come to a truce with the other not having half a brain and then turn on east alone.
[1:40:38 PM] Matt!?!: (think)

I also wonder if anyone outside of you me and nauz understood your post.

 

[DeletedUser]

[1:43:50 PM | Edited 1:44:14 PM] [lastapparatus]: Your assumption is wrong, then, and mine is right. If the only problem you can find with the post is the assumption then the argument is logically sound--even if not correct. (the two ideas of being sound and correct are different in logic) However the problem is that it *is* correct, and the only disagreement seems to be on the assumptions being made: we're making different--opposing--ones.

[1:46:24 PM] [lastapparatus]: The only thing wrong then is that we made different assumptions and I believe your assumption is wrong. Given the assumption I assumed it is logically sound. However, there is no way to prove that only one side needs half a brain to truce.
[1:47:00 PM] [lastapparatus]: iHate is too caught up in "winning!" to truce, and probably would feel like they lost face if they truced.
[1:47:36 PM | Edited 1:47:54 PM] [lastapparatus]: Me, I could care less about saving face (well... it's true) and... despite believing things have turned around, am not naive enough to think winning a war is any better than not having one.'



We're at an impasse, it seems, if the basis of our disagreement is two opposing assumptions of which neither can be proved.

 

[DeletedUser]

I also wonder if anyone outside of you me and nauz understood your post.

me turned on a computer once... close enough?

 

[mattcurr]

[Spoil][1:43:50 PM | Edited 1:44:14 PM] [lastapparatus]: Your assumption is wrong, then, and mine is right. If the only problem you can find with the post is the assumption then the argument is logically sound--even if not correct. (the two ideas of being sound and correct are different in logic) However the problem is that it *is* correct, and the only disagreement seems to be on the assumptions being made: we're making different--opposing--ones.

[1:46:24 PM] [lastapparatus]: The only thing wrong then is that we made different assumptions and I believe your assumption is wrong. Given the assumption I assumed it is logically sound. However, there is no way to prove that only one side needs half a brain to truce.
[1:47:00 PM] [lastapparatus]: iHate is too caught up in "winning!" to truce, and probably would feel like they lost face if they truced.
[1:47:36 PM | Edited 1:47:54 PM] [lastapparatus]: Me, I could care less about saving face (well... it's true) and... despite believing things have turned around, am not naive enough to think winning a war is any better than not having one.'



We're at an impasse, it seems, if the basis of our disagreement is two opposing assumptions of which neither can be proved.[/Spoil]

As such we have come to a living proof of opinions being equal, correct, and different at the same time. The key point being both able to be proven with a logical proof.

 

[DeletedUser]

guess who been doin his homework?!

Its really actually pretty basic math, he just words it like most math profs do (poorly) so it makes it a bit more difficult to read.

Not to mention, notation is wrong...or at least different then what I have seen (but I get the point he is making). Also notation changes everywhere so prob right whereever he was taught.

As for him caring if he saved face, he wouldn't go through all that "work" if he didn't want to try to make himself seem smarter and hence increase his tribes perception. Just my opinion though.

 

[DeletedUser]

ta be frank me did nay read it, everyone knows nothin LB posts has any relevance anyway!

 

[mattcurr]

Its really actually pretty basic math, he just words it like most math profs do (poorly) so it makes it a bit more difficult to read.

Yeah, but god how many people struggle in logic classes! And its all simple math. The annotations are different than what I was taught but not that much different plus a keyboard makes it hard on occasion.

 

[DeletedUser]

@Whooker: The "poor" phrasing is actually easier to understand after awhile of being exposed to it. Although I strongly agree that the rules for logic and English are completely different, and I think there is good reason for it. Most work with logic--such as logical proofs--break sentences down into equations of sorts, and so when expressing the equation in English again, the best way to deal with it is with phrasing that mimics the equation's meaning as closely as possible, hence the "it is not true that..." and "if and only if" type phrases one might avoid in common every day English. It has changed how I look at common English though: the phrases "if," "only if," and "if and only if" all have three very different meanings that, while perhaps should be obvious, I had never put much thought into before.

As for saving face, I of course try to save as much as I can when it doesn't cost me anything... And why shouldn't I? I have my pride, and I enjoy my pride, but if it would cause me to go to war, I'd toss it aside when necessary.

 

[DeletedUser104020]

Again these players are leaving in Ks far away from the war because they fear their neighbors' academies, and to be honest players like these don't deserve to be a part of us. Usually it's the leader's job to weed out the worst players to make room for better ones, in our tribe the process seems to be somewhat automated if you want to look at it that way

And of course one of them was the spy getting kicked :icon_cool:

Also i just want to to the point out most of the K55 players (including me) Left because well while NotBad is busy in the some of the other K's. K55 members will have our own threats and if lets say we started getting incomings there wouldn't be much they could do from where we are so we decided to leave which gives NotBad more spots to get more members closer to the war.

 

[DeletedUser]

You guys have started talking about some stuff that really interests me. Or at least talking about it in a way that interests me. So I'm coming out of my cave to drop some knowledge and take part .

If the only problem you can find with the post is the assumption then the argument is logically sound--even if not correct. (the two ideas of being sound and correct are different in logic)

Incorrect. I think that this is referring to validity, not soundness. Further, it's applying 'truth' in a way that it really shouldn't be applied. The argument can never be true; only the statements (assumptions/conclusions here) can be true. Anyway, to the point.

Validity = if all premises are true, then the conclusion is true.
Soundness = Valid argument where all premises are true.

So if one of the assumptions is incorrect, then the argument is by definition not sound. It can still be a valid argument, however. That much is true. Example would be like... "Things that appear larger than other things are larger than those things. The moon appears larger than Jupiter. Therefore, the moon is larger than Jupiter." That is a valid argument, because if those premises are true, then so is the conclusion. But it isn't a sound argument, because neither of the premises are correct.

Anyway, I think it's really cool that you're using logic to clarify and express your arguments! I'd really like to see more stuff like this in the future, since it will (maybe) get rid of a lot of the back and forth he-said she-said nonsense that forum arguments devolve into. Really nice to see this sort of thing when trying to make your case. I applaud you!

 

[MagicTallGuy]

You guys have started talking about some stuff that really interests me. Or at least talking about it in a way that interests me. So I'm coming out of my cave to drop some knowledge and take part .



Incorrect. I think that this is referring to validity, not soundness. Further, it's applying 'truth' in a way that it really shouldn't be applied. The argument can never be true; only the statements (assumptions/conclusions here) can be true. Anyway, to the point.

Validity = if all premises are true, then the conclusion is true.
Soundness = Valid argument where all premises are true.

So if one of the assumptions is incorrect, then the argument is by definition not sound. It can still be a valid argument, however. That much is true. Example would be like... "Things that appear larger than other things are larger than those things. The moon appears larger than Jupiter. Therefore, the moon is larger than Jupiter." That is a valid argument, because if those premises are true, then so is the conclusion. But it isn't a sound argument, because neither of the premises are correct.

Anyway, I think it's really cool that you're using logic to clarify and express your arguments! I'd really like to see more stuff like this in the future, since it will (maybe) get rid of a lot of the back and forth he-said she-said nonsense that forum arguments devolve into. Really nice to see this sort of thing when trying to make your case. I applaud you!

You killed the thread ^^

Anyway, here is NotBad panicking a little now as their plan seems to of backfired regarding SOHK as they assumed they would attack iHate.

[spoil]

[/spoil]

Also just to rectify your assumption that iHate is on fear's side, it's not, here is a screenshot of the actual war thingy

[spoil]

[/spoil]

 

[DeletedUser99143]

Whats with Notbad only doing their diplomacy on Skype, its not as if its anymore convenient or safer... or unless its just Tuhazzip.

 

[MagicTallGuy]

Another small update,

From 3rd, to 9th.
From 60 members to 40 members.

I guess we are having an impact

 

[DeletedUser]

From 60 members to 40 members.

I credit a decent portion of this drop in numbers to EAST and member cowardice.

 

[DeletedUser]

Tbh, notbad good luck

The tribes gang banging them, Its sad that you guys cant take out the members by yourself, just shows how sad your tribe is.

 

[DeletedUser]

I credit a decent portion of this drop in numbers to EAST and member cowardice.

Oh really LB?