Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

TorgoX (1933)

TorgoX
  sburkeNO@SPAMcpan.org
http://search.cpan.org/~sburke/

"Il est beau comme la retractilité des serres des oiseaux rapaces [...] et surtout, comme la rencontre fortuite sur une table de dissection d'une machine à coudre et d'un parapluie !" -- Lautréamont

Journal of TorgoX (1933)

Saturday June 08, 2002
04:12 PM

Concerned Parents Against Formal Semantics

[ #5511 ]
Dear Log,

I heard this on a public service announcement on TV the other day:

"Television is for everyone, but every show isn't. So check out what your kids are watching; you know them better than anyone."

For extra credit, translate the above into predicate logic notation. And yes, this will be on the test.

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • PL (Score:3, Funny)

    by wickline (135) on 2002.06.08 17:05 (#9340) Journal


    it is not the case that
        there exists a person such that
            for all televisions
                it is not the case that
                    the television is for that person

    it is the case that
        there exists a show such that
            there exists a person such that
                that show is not for that person

    (unable to translate imperative into PL)

    it is not the case that
        there exists personA, personB, personC, personD
            such that personB is a parent of personA
            and personC is a parent of personA
            and personD knows personA better than personB
            and personD knows personA better than personC
            and it is not the case that
                personD is a parent of personA

    As with the original, it claims that parents know their
    kids better than those kids know themselves.

    -matt
    • Very good! I particularly like how you notated what the TV copy-writer meant (there's some shows that aren't for some people), instead of what he said (every show is not for everyone -- i.e., every show has people that it's not for; or: "for" doesn't describe the relationship between every show and everybody -- so maybe some shows are AGAINST everyone, or BY everyone, etc.)

      I'm not sure what to do about the plurality on "kids" tho -- there's a reading where everyone being addressed has several children ea

      • > I'm not sure what to do about the plurality on "kids"

        hmmm...

        Maybe it should be read as something like for each
        personA, for each personB if personB is a kid of personA
        ....

        > that "you" refers to personB and personC

        another item for the conjunctive chain... but then that
        gives you a slopy bit of PL. Some folks would read it
        and have it come up false, while otherw sould have it
        come up true, which ties into your comment

        > i.e., that you DO have kids

        which could be addressed by something like the abov
    • As with the original, it claims that parents know their kids better than those kids know themselves.

      Until the kids are teenagers, this is almost always the case. When the kids are teenagers, this is often the case (that is, it should be the case, most of the time, if the parents are doing their job).

      • and if it's still true by the time the kids hit 30,
        they *really* need to move out and get their own place!

        ;)

        -matt