[2013-Feb-03] Part of the Solution/Problem

[PonyToast]

Nope.

"if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."

(¬S)→P

All things which are not part of the solution are part of the problem.

You CAN conclude:
No things which are not part of the solution are not part of the problem.
Some things which are part of the problem are not part of the solution.

You CANNOT conclude:
Some things which are part of the problem are not part of the solution.
All things which are not part of the problem are part of the solution.

But anyways, nice comic.

[ThePeople]

oh look you logically disproved the comic

I guess it wasn't funny then

[Surely you guest]

No, you're wrong. While Zach doesn't have a great record in logic, he has made a rigorously correct statement based on the premise. You can say that "all things which are not part of the problem are part of the solution."

The statement "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" creates only two independent possibilities:

1) You are part of the problem
2) You are part of the solution.

The option of being part of the problem and part of the solution simultaneously is implied. If you are not part of the problem you fall into 2 by default.

[DonRetrasado]

WHERE DO YOU STAND ON THE ISSUES? Weigh in by texting the following number RIGHT NOW:

[Edminster]

I'm reopening this because I don't want DR to get attacked with a tent pole for his aggressive actions.

[ThePeople]

a tent pole is more self-aware than these fucks

[DonRetrasado]

I'm reopening this because I don't want DR to get attacked with a tent pole for his aggressive actions.

You're my guardian angel, mang.

[unregistered masses]

PonyToast, I think you missed the point by introducing quantifiers. The two statements are "you're part of the problem" and "you're part of the solution" and accepting that their negations are "you're not part of the problem" and "you're not part of the solution", then it's trivial to get "If you're not part of the problem, you're part of the solution" from the premise. No quantifiers involved. Of course, you may argue that it doesn't make sense to treat such statements without using quantifiers, but technically, the comic is not wrong.

[Sahan]

...but technically, the comic is not wrong.

This is the thing every comic strip writer wants to hear above anything else, that their attempt at a joke is technically correct.

[Lethal Interjection]

...but technically, the comic is not wrong.

This is the thing every comic strip writer wants to hear above anything else, that their attempt at a joke is technically correct.

Ahh, but there is a difference between 'technically correct' and 'technically not wrong'.


I think. English is not my first language.

[Sahan]

Oh, but I believe that 'correct' and 'not wrong' always mean the exact same thing in all contexts and all circumstances. Clearly, our only option now is to fill this thread with pointless back-and-forth arguments on semantics for the next few pages.

[Azujax]

but i love sea man antics

[DonRetrasado]

Where did all the crayfish stuff go? I don't know how to get back to the first screen, my son set this machine up for me

[GUTCHUCKER]

[Guest]

Here is a proof utilising fitch calculus that proofs that the comic is not only correct in propositional logic, but also in first order logic.

01|∀X.(¬S(X))→P(X)
02|---------
03||C is a fresh variable
04||------------
05|||(¬P(C))
06|||---------
07||||(¬S(C))
08||||--------
09||||(¬S(C))→P(C) //∀E 01
10||||P(C) //→E 07, 09
11||||⊥ //⊥I 05, 10
12|||S(C) //⊥E 07-11
13||(¬P(C))→S(C) //→I 05-12
14|∀X.(¬P(X))→S(X) //∀I 03-13