Let's go.........RANDOM!

[Montyphy]

Mew

[Mas Tnega]

Sounds normal coming out of yours.

[NeatNit]

Just came back from Back to the Future at the theater. Why don't they make movies like that anymore? I was born too damn late.

[111none]

I wish we had a remake of the hunt for red October. one that was actually
REAlistic!

[xander]

Let $(X,d)$ and $(\tilde X, \tilde d)$ be metric spaces. We say that a function $f\colon X\to\tilde X$ is \emph{continuous at $a\in X$} if for every $\varepsilon > 0$, there exists a $\delta > 0$ such that if $x\in X$ and $d(x,a) < \delta$, then $\tilde d(f(x),f(a) < \varepsilon$. If $A\subset X$, then we say that $f$ is \emph{continuous on $A$} if $f$ is continuous at $a$ for all $a\in A$. Prove or disprove: this definition of continuity is equivalent to the topological definition, where the topologies on $X$ and $\tilde X$ are assumed to be those induced by the metric.

xander

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard]

Prove or disprove: this definition of continuity is equivalent to the topological definition, where the topologies on $X$ and $\tilde X$ are assumed to be those induced by the metric.

You know what to do.



Captain Jean-Luc Picard

[bert_the_turtle]

You forgot to tell us what the topological definition of a continuous function is, and what the topology induced by a metric is.

And you made me hate math with the pure legwork proof you made me go through in my head. Congratulations, that is quite an accomplishment! I'll need to read some Lie Algebra stuff now.

[Xocrates]

Today in class we proved Morgan's laws... by using Morgan's laws. I did a double take at that.

Granted, the point was to practice a method that relied on Morgan's laws, so what we were proving was irrelevant. Still weird though.

[NeatNit]

Today in class we proved Morgan's laws... by using Morgan's laws. I did a double take at that.

Granted, the point was to practice a method that relied on Morgan's laws, so what we were proving was irrelevant. Still weird though.

What? To prove De Morgan's Laws you just need a quick n' dirty truth table. How could you POSSIBLY mess that up?!

[Xocrates]

Read the fine print

[NeatNit]

I have read said print and deliberately chosen to ignore it.

[Mas Tnega]

I had to check to see if there were some other laws to be sure I was at the appropriate level of confusion. I was at the appropriate level of confusion.

How do you even do that without just saying "If A, Q. A. Q. Q.E.D."?

[NeatNit]

I am guessing they were using Karnaugh maps or something like that. No wait, that wouldn't... Um.

[Xocrates]

It was actually an exercise in propositional logic. The Resolution method, specifically.

And like I said, the method (or more precisely, the conversion of the equation into canonical normal form) assumes the laws are true. So the goal of the exercise wasn't to prove the laws to be true, but to learn to apply the method.

But since you're curious:

Hipothesis:
~( A || B) -> ~A && ~B

proof by contradiction, so we'll deny it:

~(~( A || B) -> ~A && ~B)

Convert into CNF (skipping several steps here - which includes applying de morgan's laws)

~A && ~B && (A || B)

or, alternative representation:

{{~A},{~B},{A,B}} -- this essentially means that in order for the hipothesis to be true, all internal groups must be true


Proof:

1. {~A} Premise
2. {~B} Premise
3. {A,B} Premise
4. {B} Resolution, (1,3) -- this essentially means that for ~A to be true, the remaining symbols in {A,B} - in this case B - must be true
5. {} Resolution, (2,4) -- contradiction, since it means both ~B and B must be true.

So the hipothesis must be true.

[NeatNit]

Just thought I'd throw this up here, there is a scary accurate comparison in that half-sentence mention: http://garry.tv/2013/03/12/office-progress/

Edit: Uh, does my avatar work? I think I may have messed something up, it doesn't appear on my screen