Discovering What Doesn't Change by Heinz Mustermann
January 3rd, 2010 4:15 PMe.g.:
If PROOF_SUBMITTED, then TASK_COMPLETED.
PROOF_SUBMITTED.
Therefore, TASK_COMPLETED.
3 vote(s)
Terms
(none yet)8 comment(s)
It was more about modus ponendo ponens/logic itself than the single example above.
And i doubt logical deduction can change over time. :)
Justification is a simple task:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_ponens#Justification_via_truth_table
Did it change in the past?
The 'completion' of a task is in the eyes of the beholders (the sf0 populace), not the computer code that approves it.
It's worth asking: if this is true, is a task ever completed? While there'd be some justification for one, there is no number of votes or vote points at which flagging becomes impossible. Therefore, even something like Doorhenge could, in theory, be flagged into disapproval, and thus be not-complete. In such a case, was the task at one point "completed" but then became not-complete after the flagging? Or is X'ing retroactive, such that anything now X'd was never complete. Does this indicate a bug?
The fact that this is a logical demonstration of praxis is, in fact, something that does not change.
Aahh, philosophy. Where I start talking too much and start looking stupid.
If the term itself is important, then I suppose we could say that 'completeness' is a state that a praxis has or doesn't have at any time, and this can change from one state to another and back.
If we actually want to talk real-world, for 99% of tasks out there, I'd say a week around after submission or a large handful of votes is enough to guarantee that you've 'completed' a task (though there are exceptions, mostly controversial praxes). This doesn't mean you haven't completed it if your submission languishes in obscurity. But does it mean that you haven't completed it if it gets (validly) flagged to X-ness?
Well, yes, in the eyes of the players of sf0, it does. Er, what I meant to say was.... don't you see? There is no 'completion'! The completion, why, it's in your heart!
It's not that I try to claim to have accomplished this task by just writing "PROOF_SUBMITTED." ...
"Modus ponens" is the actual answer. A valid argument FORM. And a valid argument FORM itself, as of my knowledge, doesn't change over time (unless god's capable of juggling with logic or the like?! lol). They just seem valid and timeless. A better example might read:
if MODUS_PONENS_GOT_DISCOVERED_AND_DOESNT_CHANGE, then TASK_COMPLETED.
MODUS_PONENS_GOT_DISCOVERED_AND_DOESNT_CHANGE.
Therefore TASK_COMPLETED.
Or at least, new logics are invented and introduced for different purposes. For example, you might think the double negation law, stating that NOT NOT P is equivalent to P is an equally unchanging, valid deductive equivalence. But in intuitionist logic, it is not valid.
Similarly, you might think that an inference from P to P AND P is valid, but in some linear logics it is not (they are not idempotent).
I know of no logic with an implication operator that does not allow modus ponens, though.
Shameless self promotion:
This completion is similar in spirit to my own completion of this task, where I present Euler's Identity.
probably just an obvious idea, really.
You're affirming the consequent. The 'completion' of a task is in the eyes of the beholders (the sf0 populace), not the computer code that approves it. So, flagged!
Nice try, though.