Hexenmeister wrote :
Hey moron, xor is a binary operator, you stupid ****, just like +, -, * and /
are binary operators. They don't "imply" at all.

so what ? did I say otherwise ?
btw = and = is as well a binary operator

| Even worse, are you pretending that (False xor False) is True ??

Hey ****head, NOT FALSE = TRUE in Boolean Algebra, so
(NOT FALSE) AND (NOT FALSE) = TRUE, haemorrhoid.

are you saying that A xor B is ((not A) and (not B)) ??

then you've just again illustrated this :

| What's really funny with you, dumby, is that one cannot never
| assume any top level for you ignorance or stupidity, you always
| figure out how to be worse...


****ing idiot.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/XOR.html

Thanks for posting the refutation of your own stupid assertions :

"It yields true if exactly one (but not both) of two conditions is
true."

" A xor B = (A and (not B)) or ((not A) and B) "

Then let's have a look on the same fine web site about implication :

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Implies.html

" A = B is an abbreviation for (not A) or B "

so let's try to learn you a bit of logic (hopelessly) :

(A xor B) = (A or B)
== not (A and (not B)) or ((not A) and B)) or (A or B)
[by def]
== ((not A or B) and (A or not B)) or A or B
[not (p and q) is (not p or not q)]
== ((A or not A or B) and (A or A or not B) or B
[or distributivity on and]
== True and (A or not B) or B
[A or not A or whatever is True]
== (True or B) and (A or not B or B)
[or distributivity on and]
== True and True == True

So it is TRUE that (A xor B) implies (A or B), what couldn't
surprise anyone with a salt of logic.

You'd better read what you link to first, aznd then *think* (could
you ?) about it.

"YBM" wrote in message ...
| Hexenmeister wrote :
| Hey moron, xor is a binary operator, you stupid ****, just like +, -, * and /
| are binary operators. They don't "imply" at all.
|
| so what ? did I say otherwise ?

Yes, you did, you dumb ****.

| btw = and = is as well a binary operator
|
| | Even worse, are you pretending that (False xor False) is True ??
|
| Hey ****head, NOT FALSE = TRUE in Boolean Algebra, so
| (NOT FALSE) AND (NOT FALSE) = TRUE, haemorrhoid.
|
| are you saying that A xor B is ((not A) and (not B)) ??

No, I'm pretending it. What I'm saying is you are ****ing ineducable idiot!!
**** off.
Androcles.

Hexenmeister a écrit :
"YBM" wrote in message ...
| Hexenmeister wrote :
| Hey moron, xor is a binary operator, you stupid ****, just like +, -, * and /
| are binary operators. They don't "imply" at all.
|
| so what ? did I say otherwise ?

Yes, you did, you dumb ****.

Where ? How ? Quote ?
I wonder if you only understand the meaning of words like "binary
operator" or "imply"...


| btw = and = is as well a binary operator
|
| | Even worse, are you pretending that (False xor False) is True ??
|
| Hey ****head, NOT FALSE = TRUE in Boolean Algebra, so
| (NOT FALSE) AND (NOT FALSE) = TRUE, haemorrhoid.
|
| are you saying that A xor B is ((not A) and (not B)) ??

No, I'm pretending it. What I'm saying is you are ****ing ineducable idiot!!
**** off.

you're loosing you cold blood. You know there is nothing bad in
recognizing a mistake, especially in science.

I've been a bit optimistic by trying to convince you by undoubtful
references and checkable propositional derivations. Let's take another
path to make you learn something, so that you didn't lose completely
the few time you'll had spent here before your death.

One : in order to refute a propostion of the form P = Q as well as
the assertion that P implies Q, one only has to find a case where P is
True and Q is False.
(agreed ?)

Two : for propostions of the form (A xor B) or (A or B) there are
only 4 different cases : (A is true, B is true) (A is true, B is false)
(A is false, B is true) (A is false, B is false)
(agreed ?)

Three : By looking at these four cases, if one found one where (A xor B)
is True and (A or B) is False, one could then say - AS YOU DID - that
it is not true that (A xor B) implies (A or B), otherwise if no such
case exists, one should then admit that (A xor B) implies (A or B)
(agreed ?)

Please don't forget to read, wait a bit and *think* before fooling
yourself.

"YBM" wrote in message ...
| Hexenmeister a icrit :
| "YBM" wrote in message ...
| | Hexenmeister wrote :
| | Hey moron, xor is a binary operator, you stupid ****, just like +, -, * and /
| | are binary operators. They don't "imply" at all.
| |
| | so what ? did I say otherwise ?
|
| Yes, you did, you dumb ****.
|
| Where ? How ? Quote ?
| I wonder if you only understand the meaning of words like "binary
| operator" or "imply"...

Y'know, you really are the dumbest **** around. The binary operator
xor does NOT imply the binary operator or.
**** off.

Androcles.

Hexenmeister a écrit :
"YBM" wrote in message ...
| Hexenmeister a icrit :
| "YBM" wrote in message ...
| | Hexenmeister wrote :
| | Hey moron, xor is a binary operator, you stupid ****, just like +, -, * and /
| | are binary operators. They don't "imply" at all.
| |
| | so what ? did I say otherwise ?
|
| Yes, you did, you dumb ****.
|
| Where ? How ? Quote ?
| I wonder if you only understand the meaning of words like "binary
| operator" or "imply"...

Y'know, you really are the dumbest **** around. The binary operator
xor does NOT imply the binary operator or.
**** off.

This sentence has no meaning, it makes little sense for a binary
operator to imply another, what makes sense if for any proposition to
imply another one (go back to Wolfram's site to check standard
definition)

But anyway, let's try to define some kind of implication between binary
operators. There is definitely no natural way to say that op1 implies
op2 outside of : (op1 implies op2) if and only if (p op1 q) = (p op2 q)
is true.

Regarding this, given that (A xor B) *implies* (A or B), you have no
other choice but admit that xor "implies" or.

Androcles, you're coined, nailed and caught in your own ignorance,
hypocrisy and stupidity.

It would really be helpful if one did not have to wade through the
inordinate amount of invective and caustic name calling to find the the
good stuff on this discussion group.

a écrit :
It would really be helpful if one did not have to wade through the
inordinate amount of invective and caustic name calling to find the the
good stuff on this discussion group.

You are perfectly right, but cannot get rid of an history of
accumulation of incredible blunders from cranks like Wiston,
Androcles (aka Hexenwhatever, aka ...), Seto, Hayek, etc.
who are the plague (and the funny part) of this group,

Given they only reacted to the pointing out of their
basic mistakes and deep misunderstanding of SR by
insults and even more blunders, they deserve some
causticity or irony, don't you think ? BTW, these
last posts of Androcles show you how are this
kind of psychotic lunatics reacting in front of
logical and rational arguments.

wrote in message oups.com...
|
| It would really be helpful if one did not have to wade through the
| inordinate amount of invective and caustic name calling to find the the
| good stuff on this discussion group.


That's the way it has always been, Bob. The dingbat goes off on
a tangent about xor and digs himself a hole. "Good stuff" has always
been less than 1% of this newsgroup, the other 99% are abject morons.
Androcles.

"YBM" wrote in message ...
| Hexenmeister a icrit :
| "YBM" wrote in message ...
| | Hexenmeister a icrit :
| | "YBM" wrote in message ...
| | | Hexenmeister wrote :
| | | Hey moron, xor is a binary operator, you stupid ****, just like +, -, * and /
| | | are binary operators. They don't "imply" at all.
| | |
| | | so what ? did I say otherwise ?
| |
| | Yes, you did, you dumb ****.
| |
| | Where ? How ? Quote ?
| | I wonder if you only understand the meaning of words like "binary
| | operator" or "imply"...
|
| Y'know, you really are the dumbest **** around. The binary operator
| xor does NOT imply the binary operator or.
| **** off.
|
| This sentence has no meaning

You have no ****ing meaning, ****. **** off.
Androcles

Hexenmeister wrote :
You have no ****ing meaning, ****. **** off.

You're miserabily escaping in order not to admit to be wrong on a basic
subject, as usual.

(A xor B) = (A or B)

right or wrong, coined crank ?