(no subject)

[logomancer]

Today was not the best of days. However, I think I handled it pretty well. Here's the breakdown:

UNIX class was, once again, a joke. Gifford spent an hour lecturing us on the intricacies of the UNIX file system. We (I should probably say "they" here -- this stuff was by no means new to me) also learned how to change directories, permissions, and how to copy, move, and delete files -- teaching that will, no doubt, be reinforced in lab (ugh). I think I'm going to be very bored and annoyed with this class for a while. The man is a complete twit. I can feel the bogon radiation ionizing my brain when I'm near him. An example of his stupidity: One time, he was working on one of the Curator computers (part of our automatic code grading system), grading work. He input the command rm -rf * when he was in the root directory, not realizing where he was, and thus deleted the entire contents of the computer's Linux partition. While I'm sure McQuain tore him a new one for doing that, it still doesn't explain why they put a clear incompetent like this in charge of teaching a UNIX class. It's just wrong. Come to think of it, the entire class is wrong -- they're teaching it like they would to BIT students. They should have a course on UNIX programming instead. Of course, we're not getting one, but that doesn't make me any less frustrated.

Discrete Math was even worse. Brown was in rare form today. We were given this word problem: The HR director of a large company tells you that you will be hired only if you get a math or CS major, get a B average or better, and take Accounting. You do all these things, but are not hired. Was the director lying when he made that statement? I argued that he was, because while the preconditions were met, the postconditions weren't. Therefore, the statement was false, and he was lying. Brown rejected that argument, and stated that maybe there was a fourth criterion that was to be met to get the job. But how can you assume that? By both the principle of modus tollens and the truth tables, I am correct and Brown is not. However, he refuses to see this, going on about how logic has no real connection to the real world, yet stating arrogantly that logic is the basis for law and other such. And he patronizes me all the way. I tire of this man implying that I'm stupid -- especially when I'm right. To top it off, he gave us this extra credit assignment: Given a giraffe, how do you weigh it? Incredible. He must have some insane sort of tenure, cause if I was Mathematics chair, I would've sent him packing long ago.

That was the most of it, aside from the really bad service at Chick-Fil-A this evening. But I've had a shower and a walk since then, so I feel a bit better. I thnk I shall read a bit, then go to bed.

Comments

[zerblinitzky.livejournal.com]

Unix: Yeah, it's dull. I took it in summer, so it wasn't as dull for me; I had plenty of other stuff to keep me busy and it was over quickly.
Unix programming: Take OS. It's essentially a class on the design of Unix, and how to program in it.
Discrete: There you go again, misunderstanding implication. What the HR director said was "we'll only hire you if you meet these conditions" which is equivalent to "if we hired you, then you met these conditions" not "if you meet these conditions then we'll hire you". Call the conditions C, and whether you're hired or not H. H implies C because you can only be hired by meeting C. But, C does not imply H because it is possible to meet C without being hired; suppose you took a job somewhere else, or met C but also killed seventeen people with an axe. See? He's right, you're not.

[robertliguori.livejournal.com]

However, the question also asked if the HR director lied, NOT if he made a statement that wasn't true according to what it would be if it was said in Logic instead of English.
Lie: [n] a statement that deviates from or perverts the truth.
English has a definition for only if, Logic has another. The question was asked in English. Therefore, he was lying, even if the statement he made was true if one assigns the logical operator definition to only if.

[slitherrr.livejournal.com]

but you're absolutely wrong, because even taken "in english", as you put it, the statement is still obviously in the logical form. just because the director happens to know a little bit about formal argument and you don't doesn't mean you get the job, nerd. and as far as your differentiation between logic and english goes, you're wrong there too. definitions in logic exist to clarify precisely definitions in english, they are not completely separate, and assuming so will just get your ass burned in a courtroom or in the business world.

[robertliguori.livejournal.com]

And as I said, he lied. By almost every dictionary in the world, you can lie with a true-but-misleading statement. And as I said, the question didn't ask whether or not his statement evaluated to T or F, it asked if he lied. That's not a logic question.

[cxi162.livejournal.com]

Why do you insist that you are right? Let's try to make this simple so it can be understood. I will rephrase the statement:

The HR director tells you that you will be hired only if you have good grades. You have good grades, but are not hired. Did he lie?

No, all he has stated is that if you do not have good grades, you definitely will not be hired. Let's try another:

The manager says that to be in his country club, you have to be rich. You are rich, but don't get in. Did he lie?

No, for the same reason. He set a limiting condition on entry, but it didn't imply that meeting the condition meant you would get in.

[robertliguori.livejournal.com]

Because in the example, you asked what to do in order to get the job. He made a statement that was technically true, although deceptive and not an answer to your question. Not logically false, but still a lie, as I said.

[cxi162.livejournal.com]

Because in the example, you asked what to do in order to get the job.

A question? Where? Please point to the question.

There was no question, only a statement was made. (Please reference the following line from the original problem: "Was the director lying when he made that statement?" You are making an assumption about a question that doesn't fit the data you have. What if the question was, "What do I have to do to get a job here?" The director then would not have been lying, would he? However, it doesn't matter in the long run, because you can't make that assumption in the first place.

[robertliguori.livejournal.com]

The question: You ask the PR director what it takes to get a job. He says you will get a job only if you do stuff. He didn't answer your question, as in this specific case q->p is and p->q isn't. He made a logically true statement that was misleading. If I was giving someone programming advice and used the word 'this' in a manner that would lead them to believe I was referencing an object when I was in fact referencing the object's this pointer, I would have made a true statement, and would be lying by most definitions of the word.

This is a semantics issue, not a logic one. Shall we drop it?

[cxi162.livejournal.com]

How can I put this clearly. THERE WAS NO QUESTION. Just because a statement was made doesn't mean a question was asked. You can't say he lied in his answer to "the question" when "the question" doesn't exist. If the question had existed, it would have been part of the original problem. When I asked you to show me the question, you invented it instead of taking it from the original problem as worded. You can't just make up extra data for the problem and then claim it doesn't work anymore. Ok, I suppose you can literally do it, because you did, but that doesn't mean it is in any way correct. :)

The entire basis of your argument revolves around a non-existent question, and since you fail to see that, please, do drop it.

[robertliguori.livejournal.com]

Non-existent? Page 28 of Discrete Mathematics with Applications, 2nd Edition, problem 27:
"Taking the long view on your education, you go to the Prestige Corporation and ask what you should do in college to be hired when you graduate. The Personnel Director replies that you will be hired only if you major in mathematics or computer science, get a B average or better, and take accounting. You do, in fact, become a math major, get a B+ average, and take accounting. You return to Prestige Corporation, make a formal application, and are turned down. Did the Personnel director lie to you?"

[slitherrr.livejournal.com]

so basically, he didn't answer the literal question, ie, he didn't specify what you can do that will guarantee your entry into the corp. but he still didn't lie through "misleading information", because his statement was perfectly true in every sense of the word and he omitted nothing. even more to the point, he can't answer that question, because there is no set of qualifications that will guarantee you entry, because someone might always have some qualification that exceeds yours and thus puts you out of the running. so in both the "english" and the "logic" sense, you're wrong.

[robertliguori.livejournal.com]

Hmm. According to the logic thusly presented, if someone asks a yes-or-no question with an indeterminate answer, and you answer an entirely different question with "No", you haven't lied?
The information presented to the hypothetical non-employee leads him to believe that he will be hired if he fufills the qualifications. Thus, he lied.

From dictionary.com:
Lie, n. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
If you posit answering a question with something that sounds like an answer but is not, without clarifying that you aren't answering the question but giving what information you can, you are giving a wrong impression.

[cxi162.livejournal.com]

Some of us don't have discrete mathematics books laying around, and in a discussion about logic, the entire problem should have be presented. In any case, on the one hand the literal question does not ask what the student should do to enter the specific company, only what to do to get hired in general. So if we are going with your "question was asked in English not Logic" theory the question itself was misleading. However, I don't agree with that argument.

Furthermore, another good example of why his response is not a lie is the following rewording: "Taking the long view on your education, you go to the Prestige Corporation and ask what you should do in college to be hired when you graduate. The Personnel Director replies that you will be hired only if you submit an application. You return to Prestige Corporation, make a formal application, and are turned down. Did the Personnel director lie to you?"

The conditions listed by the director have no bearing on the truth of the statement, as long as the applicant performs them, so this substitution does not change the truth of the statement in any way. Its purpose is to remove the clutter of the statement, which was put in there specifically to mislead. As in the original problem, with the rewording he has not lied, he has only stated that in order to be hired you must comply with the conditions but complying with them does not guarantee it. The only guarantee is that if you don't meet the conditions, you absolutely will not be hired. Now that I have actually seen the question, it still has no bearing on the validity of what the director has said. The director's statement is still valid, and using your own arguments the applicant asked a misleading question in the first place (not that I believe in approaching the problem that way).

Perhaps an even simpler example with get the point across: "You ask the mechanic how to make your car run. The mechanic replies that you have to put gas in your car. After putting gas in you car, it still isn't running. Did he lie?" Does the fact that you failed to put the key in the ignition and turn it make the mechanic a liar? No, it doesn't, the same way that meeting the qualifications for a job does not mean you automatically get it.

[robertliguori.livejournal.com]

I did post the entire question. I'd tell you to blame vt_andros, except in his current state he'd probably commit seppuku.
And you're talking about the truth value of his statement, not whether or not it was a lie.

The director's statement is still valid, and using your own arguments the applicant asked a misleading question in the first place (not that I believe in approaching the problem that way).

This is the crux of the disagreement. The question asked was whether or not he lied. That is not wholly contingent on the truth value of the statement, which is certainly true.

[cxi162.livejournal.com]

You ignored the issue as to whether the mechanic lied, which was kind of important. How about we make it more applicable to this conversation. I ask you what it would take for you to accept that I'm right. You reply, "You have to prove to me I'm wrong." So I prove to you that you are wrong, but you do not accept my proof. As far as I'm concerned, I have met your condition but you failed to accept it anyway, which by your logic means that you lied when you set up the conditions. It, of course, makes no sense whatsoever for me to assume this. I can't assume that you lied simply because the outcome was not what I expected! Why is this? Let's go back to your dictionary: "Lie, n. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression." To deceive means that there needs to be intention behind the deception. Was there an intention to lie when you laid out your (hypothetical) conditions? No, of course not. Was the HR director trying to deceive the applicant? What if the HR director was just stupid? What if he was a very literal person? You don't know. You can't know, because it isn't part of the problem as worded, assuming there isn't some other part of the problem I haven't seen or context in what is being taught in the class to the contrary. At BEST, you could argue that you can't know if the HR director lied or not because you don't know his intentions when giving the answer. However, considering that the problem is not about psychology, but instead about discrete mathematics, intention doesn't factor into it!

We've come at this problem several different ways now, and every way you look at it, he did not lie. You've seem to have ignored all of my counter examples to your theory in which I laid out similar statements to show that lies were not involved. On top of that you are arguing outside of the realm of logic by throwing intention into it, similar to the previous attempt to define a third state in binary logic. If the teacher, plus two other individuals and the accumulated knowledge in the field can't convince you, I have no idea why I thought I could. I give up. Good luck.

[slitherrr.livejournal.com]

robert really is that kind of an arguing guy. it's definitely made for a long-ass thread of interesting replies.

[cxi162.livejournal.com]

Ditto on everything. UNIX sucked when I took it nine years ago. Nice to see it hasn't improved. And yes, Brown continues to be correct. Perhaps he's trying to teach you something...

[tadakimacun.livejournal.com]

Poor thing. This Brown guy sounds like a candidate for ES. Hang in there, baby! *hugs*

[slitherrr.livejournal.com]

shit, brown knows exactly what he's talking about. i have no sympathy.

[slitherrr.livejournal.com]

sorry you got gifford by the way. last year, he was the incompetant asshole GTA loser that pissed off half the class by refusing to grade perfectly correct answers. how he got the teaching position i'll never know. my suggestion, if the class is still graded the same way as last year, is to completely skip the lecture and only go to the lab. it's easy enough to pick up what you need from the notes, especially since you're already familiar with the os, and the lecture is just a waste of good sleeping time.

[slitherrr.livejournal.com]

and one last little thing (assuming i don't argue any more in the "HR director" thread), brown's extra credit assignments are great! i never knew exactly how many ways there are to weigh a giraffe until i took that class, haha. the point is to get you thinking outside the box, instead of saying something like "put the damn giraffe on a damn scale and read the damn numbers"

[robertliguori.livejournal.com]

The problem is that all we're given is a giraffe. No, e.g., scales to weigh it on, chainsaw to turn the giraffe into more managable chunks, or universe to weigh the giraffe in. And if you can posit any of those, why not just posit a giraffe-weighing device and have done with it?

[slitherrr.livejournal.com]

you can. that's the point. he says "given a giraffe," not "given a giraffe and nothing else," so you can assume you are given what you would normally have available, the same way you can assume to have theorems that have already been proven for any particular problem without saying stuff like "given 1 + 1 = 2". the main difference is that b² doesn't know what you'd have in real life, so you can go ahead and say you have anything. don't try that in logical argument on a test though, because there he knows what tools you have available.