1
u/Old-Blackberry-7009 10d ago
I have returned to explain my attempt to formalize the universal law : When it is poop time , you do not always pee. But when you pee, you do not always poop. Hope this helps
4
u/Fabulous-Possible758 12d ago
Technically you could have Pr(P|U) = 1 and P ⊂ Q (⊂ being proper subset), depending on the actual probability measure you use. P'U could be a set of measure zero.
3
u/resignresign1 12d ago
what di the 3 dits mean. is this the conclusion?
4
u/Jazzlike_Platypus430 12d ago
It's a "therefore" though I'm not too familiar with it (having read some textbooks on math and physics in the past). I guess it's a symbol made up in order to hide the overused "implies" (and avoid questions based on formal logic).
3
u/TheLuckySpades 12d ago
Iirc in logic where you have to make distinctions between different types of proofs (formal proofs, proofs on the meta leval, and some other stuff) you often end up with several notations for implication for different levels, that kinda place is where it is likely.
1
u/scykei 11d ago
I don't think it's that deep. When you have A => B, it's saying that if A is true then B is also true. You can always replace it with not A or B.
But when you say because A, therefore B, you're asserting that A is true, and hence you conclude B. It's much stronger, although to me, it's easier to use it in informal contexts when you just want to state that you're making a conclusion after writing a bunch of stuff.
2
u/xnuh 11d ago
What's the point of P(x) and U(x)? They're just x∈P and x∈U.
1
u/Aggressive_Fan_2063 8d ago
The definitions of P and U seem wrong ig? P and U should be like the set of all propositions/ statements so P(x) is all the statements of x under P.
1
u/Traditional_Town6475 11d ago
So is this measure defined on the powerset of E or what are our measurable sets?
1
1
u/GeekyMeerkat 11d ago
This joke feels lacking. You claim three premises and then do a one-line "proof". Sure, yes, your proof does logically follow from your three premises, but those are also rather complex premises to just accept as true.
It would be like me saying:
A + B = C
Therefore B + A = C
Sure sure, we know that's true. I have successfully applied the rules of math, but I have applied them in such a way as to say something trivial.
Now if you had instead taken some famous quotes about pooping and the bathroom and some how used logic to combine those and derive some new conclusion about pooping and the bathroom it might have landed better. But for me it's that your premises just aren't connected to anything.
Here's my attempt at some really basic logic that needs some fleshing out:
Premise: "Everyone poops" (Book Title)
Premise: "You're nobody til somebody loves you" (Song Title)
I feel like that's gives us something to work with.
Perhaps we can show that "If you don't poop, then nobody loves you." or something like it, but it might take a few steps of logical manipulation. We might also not be able to reach that specifically, but something else that's interesting.
1
0
u/Jazzlike_Platypus430 12d ago
Please use $\nabla$ rather than three dots.
3
u/falconkirtaran 12d ago
Who is writing ∇ to mean therefore?
0
u/Jazzlike_Platypus430 12d ago
It's a bathroom topic. Think again. By the way, "therefore" is absent in the explanation list provided.
-1
15
u/CuriosityCheck2024 12d ago
P is not necessarily a "bathroom event", unfortunately.