LOGIC, FOLKS

[Linux and the X]

(Furtherment of Democracy; Mild)

BELIEVING that logic is of importance,

NOTING that logic has been lacking in recent discussion in these halls, and

HOPING to correct the issue,

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY,

⊦ ¬(p ∨ q) ⇔ (¬p) ∧ (¬q)

⊦ ¬(p ∧ q) ⇔ (¬p) ∨ (¬q)

⊦ P(a) ∧ P(b) ∧ P(c) ⇔ ¬(¬P(a) ∨ ¬P(b) ∨ ¬P(c))

⊦ P(a) ∨ P(b) ∨ P(c) ⇔ ¬(¬P(a) ∧ ¬P(b) ∧ ¬P(c))

[Mousebumples]

Category and strength?

[Coxnord]

The Holy Empire applauds this initiative but feels compelled to ask for a translation (into English, German, Swedish or Icelandic) of the last two lines of the proposal.

Oh and the letter 't' is missing in "importance".

[New Kilballyowen]

The Holy Empire applauds this initiative but feels compelled to ask for a translation (into English, German, Swedish or Icelandic) of the last two lines of the proposal.

Oh and the letter 't' is missing in "importance".

So... logic isn't a matter of imporance?

[Mousebumples]

So... logic isn't a matter of imporance?

Depends on your definition of "imporance" ...

[The Floor Kippers]

--Snip--

"Logic, My Dear Friend, Merely Enables One to be Wrong With Authority"

[Linux and the X]

Given that no one seems to have any problems that remain unaddressed, I'll likely be formally submitting this soon.

[Unibotian WA Mission]

1. A resolution cannot be both legal and void of operative clauses.
2. This resolution has no operative clauses.
3. Therefore, this resolution cannot be legal.

Uni hopes his logic is a correct application of MPT, but he's only had three logic lessons thus far..and he's scared of what would happen if the second clause was "NOT Q".

[Coxnord]

We are still waiting to see if any translation will be provided...

The Holy Empire applauds this initiative but feels compelled to ask for a translation (into English, German, Swedish or Icelandic) of the last two lines of the proposal.

[Linux and the X]

[*] This resolution has no operative clauses.

It does indeed, Ambassador!

⊦ ¬(p ∨ q) ⇔ (¬p) ∧ (¬q)
⊦ ¬(p ∧ q) ⇔ (¬p) ∨ (¬q)

We are still waiting to see if any translation will be provided...

ASSERTS that NOT (p OR q) is logically equivalent to (NOT p) AND (NOT q)
ASSERTS that NOT (p AND q) is logically equivalent to (NOT p) OR (NOT q)

[Unibot II]

[*] This resolution has no operative clauses.

It does indeed, Ambassador!

⊦ ¬(p ∨ q) ⇔ (¬p) ∧ (¬q)
⊦ ¬(p ∧ q) ⇔ (¬p) ∨ (¬q)

Ah, then it is an optionality violation, because the following are logic variables of some kind, so you're allowing ambassadors to choose what they wish to substitute for P and Q.

[Coxnord]

We are still waiting to see if any translation will be provided...

ASSERTS that NOT (p OR q) is logically equivalent to (NOT p) AND (NOT q)
ASSERTS that NOT (p AND q) is logically equivalent to (NOT p) OR (NOT q)

Thank You. The Holy Empire can now lend this proposal its full support.

[Linux and the X]

It does indeed, Ambassador!

Ah, then it is an optionality violation, because the following are logic variables of some kind, so you're allowing ambassadors to choose what they wish to substitute for P and Q.

Well we'd better hurry up and repeal that ban on forced disappearances, then.

4. Permits member states to protect the identities and whereabouts of an individual in a way that may bear characteristics of forced disappearances, provided that the intentions of this resolution are respected and that the said individual has given consent;

"An individual"?! That's just a linguistic variable of some kinds; it lets nations choose WHICH individual! Damn you and your illegal resolutions, Unibot!

[Unibotian WA Mission]

Ah, then it is an optionality violation, because the following are logic variables of some kind, so you're allowing ambassadors to choose what they wish to substitute for P and Q.

Well we'd better hurry up and repeal that ban on forced disappearances, then.

4. Permits member states to protect the identities and whereabouts of an individual in a way that may bear characteristics of forced disappearances, provided that the intentions of this resolution are respected and that the said individual has given consent;

"An individual"?! That's just a linguistic variable of some kinds; it lets nations choose WHICH individual! Damn you and your illegal resolutions, Unibot!

The ambiguity is to include all individuals, if P and Q are to include anything and everything but the same thing, then you essentially allow the voter to choose what category he wants to put a resolution in... see the resolution changes with what category it is in if the variables are carbon emissions or dictators.

[Linux and the X]

Well we'd better hurry up and repeal that ban on forced disappearances, then.

"An individual"?! That's just a linguistic variable of some kinds; it lets nations choose WHICH individual! Damn you and your illegal resolutions, Unibot!

The ambiguity is to include all individuals, if P and Q are to include anything and everything but the same thing, then you essentially allow the voter to choose what category he wants to put a resolution in... see the resolution changes with what category it is in if the variables are carbon emissions or dictators.

How does that change the category? No matter what p and q are, the same logical relationships hold.

[Fireflakes]

The ambiguity is to include all individuals, if P and Q are to include anything and everything but the same thing, then you essentially allow the voter to choose what category he wants to put a resolution in... see the resolution changes with what category it is in if the variables are carbon emissions or dictators.

How does that change the category? No matter what p and q are, the same logical relationships hold.

But the subject matter changes...

EDIT: This is Uni.

[Linux and the X]

How does that change the category? No matter what p and q are, the same logical relationships hold.

But the subject matter changes...

Not at all. The resolution is about the logical relationships, not the contents of p and q.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Math or anything resembling math -- ie. symbols and stuff -- is generally frowned upon in the General Assembly. Your "logic" is too specific and cannot in any way, shape or form apply to all nations and all tech levels at once. I advise you draft a more broad proposal.

[Unibot II]

But the subject matter changes...

Not at all. The resolution is about the logical relationships, not the contents of p and q.

But if the contents of P and Q radically changes, the category needs to be changed ... because the the only consistent subject matter is preambulatory. When push goes to shove, if there is a conflict of subject matter between the objective clauses and the preamble... the later wins out.

[Linux and the X]

Not at all. The resolution is about the logical relationships, not the contents of p and q.

But if the contents of P and Q radically changes, the category needs to be changed ... because the the only consistent subject matter is preambulatory. When push goes to shove, if there is a conflict of subject matter between the objective clauses and the preamble... the later wins out.

The effects of the resolution have nothing to do with what p and q represent. The logical relationships hold for ALL contents of p and q.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

"Yeah, I wish that was possible," chuckled Ms. Harper. "By the way, what's the programming language?"

[Linux and the X]

"Yeah, I wish that was possible," chuckled Ms. Harper. "By the way, what's the programming language?"

Propositional calculus?

[Unibot II]

"Yeah, I wish that was possible," chuckled Ms. Harper. "By the way, what's the programming language?"

Logic Notation.

But if the contents of P and Q radically changes, the category needs to be changed ... because the the only consistent subject matter is preambulatory. When push goes to shove, if there is a conflict of subject matter between the objective clauses and the preamble... the later wins out.

The effects of the resolution have nothing to do with what p and q represent. The logical relationships hold for ALL contents of p and q.

I think they do, ambassador.

[Linux and the X]

The effects of the resolution have nothing to do with what p and q represent. The logical relationships hold for ALL contents of p and q.

I think they do, ambassador.

And I'm telling you you're wrong.

(Why yes, Fred IS an insufferable jackass sometimes.)

[Unibot II]

I think they do, ambassador.

And I'm telling you you're wrong.

(Why yes, Fred IS an insufferable jackass sometimes.)

Dah.. I think I broke it..

ASSERTS that NOT reading this resolution or this resolution establishing a WA army is logically equivalent to not reading this resolution AND this resolution not establishing a WA army.
ASSERTS that NOT reading this resolution and this resolution establishing a WA army is logically equivalent to not reading this resolution OR this resolution establishing a WA army.