chromeVidrio t1_ixav17d wrote

Your ideas about 3 et seq. are likely mere definitions that will allow us to determine the answer to whether I have a dog.

That is, of 1 and 2, one must be true and one must be false. That is, I cannot have a dog and not have a dog at the same time. It’s an impossibility.

If 3 is a cat, then 2 is true. If 3 is anything other than a dog, then 2 is true, but if 3 is a dog then 1 is true.

You see what I’m saying?

And as to whether the universe is true or not, I don’t know the answer, but I know it’s either true or false, and it is cannot be both true and false.


chromeVidrio t1_ixao733 wrote

Lol, again, it does not matter what is the definition of RL. It doesn’t even matter if RL changes.

A is always RL or not RL

B is always RL or not RL

To prove me wrong you need to show me a scenario where

A = not RL and RL

B = not RL and RL

It’s an impossibility. You cannot be not Race Leader and be Race Leader at the same time. You cannot be and not be at the same time. Ternary logic might exist but it’s wrong to the extent it might suggest that things need not always be true or false.


chromeVidrio t1_ixakh2g wrote

RL = both A and B if RL ≠ SL

All you’ve done is change the definition of RL.

RL is no longer “singular leader.”

It now allows for ties.

RL = SL or tied racers

Therefore, RL = both A and B

A is still RL or not RL

B is still RL or not RL

It’s just solved differently with your new definition of RL. Now the answer is just true instead of false, which of course is allowed by “RL or not RL.”


chromeVidrio t1_ixag01g wrote

So, no, even in your example we know the answer must be true or false.

I will use RL for Race Leader.

From context, we know you’re defining RL as

> singular leader.

A will be Person 1.

B will be Person 2.

> If A = singular leader, then A = RL

> If B = singular leader, then B = RL

> If A ≠ singular leader, then A ≠ RL

> If B ≠ singular leader, then B ≠ RL

A is either the singular leader or he is not, right?

Same goes for B.

(We know neither are singular leader because they are tied, but put that aside for now. Let’s pretend we don’t know they’re tied.)

I’ll use SL for singular leader now.

In other words:

> A = SL or not SL

> B = SL or not SL

And we know our definition of RL that RL is SL.

> RL = SL


> RL = SL

> A = SL or not SL

> B = SL or not SL


> A = RL or not RL

> B = RL or not RL

We have now proven that it is either true or false that A is RL and that it is either true or false that B is RL.

And for fun, we can go ahead solve the problem here, since you told us they are tied and that tied ≠ SL.

A ≠ SL

B ≠ SL


A ≠ RL

B ≠ RL


A = RL is False

A ≠ RL is True

B = RL is False

B ≠ RL is True

RL = not A or B

(aka RL = not A and not B)


chromeVidrio t1_ixa2n78 wrote

Yeah, I’m not a programmer, but if I am following correctly, then null = true or false. That is, it still has to be true or false, and it cannot be true and false or not true and not false.

Meaning, I’m right. We might not know the answer, but it has to be true or false. It can’t be both or neither.

> Unknown means “true or false, depending on the null values”.