Pet Peeves

[daq7]

The argument would go like this:

Take as a given that Everything is lost.

Ok then, answer the question. If the premise is true then what isn't lost.

The answer is nothing.

Therefore saying that Everything is lost is the opposite of saying there is nothing that has not been lost.

If you premise that nothing is lost then answer the following question:

What is not lost? The answer is everything. Saying that everything is not lost is logically EXACTLY the same thing as saying nothing is lost which is not what you meant to say.

If you premise that SOME things are lost, answer this question:

What is lost? The answer is SOME things but not everything. So if you want to say that some things have been lost but not everything, you should say not all is lost, because that is what means that not all is lost.

[Frog]

"not" = -1 therefore -1 = "not"

therefore (all)(-1) = (-1)(all)

The statements are equal.

[CaraRose]

The argument would go like this:

Take as a given that Everything is lost.

Ok then, answer the question. If the premise is true then what isn't lost.

The answer is nothing.

Therefore saying that Everything is lost is the opposite of saying there is nothing that has not been lost.

If you premise that nothing is lost then answer the following question:

What is not lost? The answer is everything. Saying that everything is not lost is logically EXACTLY the same thing as saying nothing is lost which is not what you meant to say.

If you premise that SOME things are lost, answer this question:

What is lost? The answer is SOME things but not everything. So if you want to say that some things have been lost but not everything, you should say not all is lost, because that is what means that not all is lost.

That doesn't follow to me. The inverse of everything is not nothing. Let's say we're referring to a small set of five pencils. All the pencils must include all five. To not have all the pencils will include all cases where I have less than five pencils. That means cases for "some" and the case for "none" would both need to be included in the inverse of everything (NOT everything = something OR nothing)

[CaraRose]

"not" = -1 therefore -1 = "not"

therefore (all)(-1) = (-1)(all)

The statements are equal.

Agreed.

I broke it into logical statements.

everything=A
lost=B

!=NOT
"is" becomes "="

!A = B [(NOT A) is B]
A = !B [A is (NOT B)]


Logically, if !A=B, then it follows that the inverse of !A will equal the inverse of B. Therefore both statements are logically sound.

Sorry, I hope super nerdy logic folk isn't anyone's pet peeves! I majored in computer science and minored in philosophy. I think this way.

[Loupey]

I really dislike it when my son farts at the dinner table.





Every time.





As loud as possible.

[daq7]

not =-1 therefore all = -1? That is a logical and linguistic leap that is absurd.

Map these statements:

I have lost everything
I have lost something
I have lost nothing

to

All is lost
Not all is lost
Nothing is lost

I will admit to some linguistic ambiguity between the statement all is lost and all is not lost. But it is far more accurate verbally to say not all is lost than it is to say all is not lost. The latter is ambiguous and stupid. Of course I am a minority of one. You needn't fret that I feel contempt for this usage. You are quite welcome to feel contempt for me. You will anyway.

[CaraRose]

not =-1 therefore all = -1? That is a logical and linguistic leap that is absurd.

Neither me nor Frog said not=-1 therefore all=-1. Frog was using the same principle that say 1(2) is the same as 2(1). (-1)(all) is the same as (all)(-1). Where the negation takes place is irrelevant, since the two values are still equivalent.

My statement is basically a variation of transposition.

NOT A = B
therefore:
A = NOT B

Assume NOT A is TRUE.
NOT A = B, therefore B must be TRUE.
Since NOT A is TRUE, A must be FALSE.
Since B is TRUE, NOT B must be FALSE.
Therefore A = NOT B.

Using the following definitions for All, None, and Some
All is the entirety of a set, NOT All would be anything that is not the entirety of the set, this means Not All may be either None OR Some.
None is nothing of a set, NOT None, is anything that contains anything of the set, whether partial or entire. So NOT None may be Some or All.
Some is a partial of the set, Not Some would then have to be anything that is not the partial set. So Some may not be None and may not be All. So Some would be NOT(All OR None).

Since Not All = None OR Some.
Then All = NOT(None OR SOME).
Apply De Morgan's Law and get
All = NOT None AND Not Some.

All is lost = (NOT None AND Not Some) is lost.
Not(All is lost)= NOT((NOT None AND Not Some) is lost.)

Once again use De Morgan's Law and get
None OR Some is NOT Lost.

Since All = None OR Some
Therefore:
All is NOT Lost.

This is making me miss college. I loved logic classes.
I apologize for my utter geekiness.

[Frog]

Thank you, Cara! I would have had to think enough to get a headache to give such a succinct answer.

[Frog]

Loupey, thanks for bringing us back to earth.

[billy320]

I hate long lines, at the store or anywhere

[Liz]

Shopping at Walmart - and the sales person can't speak any English - or understand it. This happened to me more than once.

I think it's fine that sales persons - or persons in any type of human relation jobs can speak other languages, especially Spanish. But IMO the sales persons should really know how to speak English.

Liz

[GB1]

Shopping at Walmart - and the sales person can't speak any English - or understand it. This happened to me more than once.

I think it's fine that sales persons - or persons in any type of human relation jobs can speak other languages, especially Spanish. But IMO the sales persons should really know how to speak English.

Liz

A related issue I have here is with foreign help-line personnel, especially from India where their English is probably the hardest of any to understand.

Speaking of which, I just had a credit card fraud issue where someone was using my card to buy products from Apple's Musicstore ($711 worth, to be exact). They suspended the card and I had to go over recent charges on the telephone with an Indian woman. Whew that was painful.. there were times when I just had to tell here "I can't understand what you just said", as embarrassing as that may sound. I also plainly pointed out to her one charge that was legitimate and I thought she got that -- alas, when I got the paperwork, they denied that one too. I think it shows that her English wasn't good enough to do the job.. guess it doesn't matter to Chase.

[OldClicker]

A related issue I have here is with foreign help-line personnel, especially from India where their English is probably the hardest of any to understand.

Speaking of which, I just had a credit card fraud issue where someone was using my card to buy products from Apple's Musicstore ($711 worth, to be exact). They suspended the card and I had to go over recent charges on the telephone with an Indian woman. Whew that was painful.. there were times when I just had to tell here "I can't understand what you just said", as embarrassing as that may sound. I also plainly pointed out to her one charge that was legitimate and I thought she got that -- alas, when I got the paperwork, they denied that one too. I think it shows that her English wasn't good enough to do the job.. guess it doesn't matter to Chase.

I like when the barely obviously Indian answers the call with something like, "Hello, my name is Shawn O'Reilly. How may I help you?" - TF

[Sushigaijin]

I have a few:

People talking on cell phones while doing something else; driving, handing money to a cashier, trying to order something from a clerk, etc. It's really, really rude. Hang up and talk to the person taking your money as if they are a human being, please.

Hearing "dethaw" makes me crazy. You probably mean "defrost." Dethaw is most likely the opposite of what you mean.

oh, there are more.

[OldClicker]

I have a few:

People talking on cell phones while doing something else; driving, handing money to a cashier, trying to order something from a clerk, etc. It's really, really rude. Hang up and talk to the person taking your money as if they are a human being, please.

Hearing "dethaw" makes me crazy. You probably mean "defrost." Dethaw is most likely the opposite of what you mean.

oh, there are more.

I think we shoudn't count cell phones in this thread - just too easy. There is very little about the way that they are used that wouldn't be on my list. - TF

[SmartWombat]

Cell phones and driving- should be illegal.
TEXT messaging and driving - should be illegal.

I'm astonished that they can't be prosecuted for not driving with due care and attention or something, it shouldn't need a new law to encourage people not to be stupid.

[GB1]

Cell phones and driving- should be illegal.
TEXT messaging and driving - should be illegal.

I'm astonished that they can't be prosecuted for not driving with due care and attention or something, it shouldn't need a new law to encourage people not to be stupid.

Yep. It's now illegal here in California. You are still allowed to use hands-free devices though: bluetooth, etc. I still see people sneaking a call in, but it's nowhere near as crazy as it was.

[SmartWombat]

Hands free is no more distracting than talking to your passenger.
Less, usually, as I see many drivers turning to talk to their passenger and not watching the road.
I don't see many on hands free turning to face the direction of their caller ;)

[OldClicker]

Yep. It's now illegal here in California. You are still allowed to use hands-free devices though: bluetooth, etc. I still see people sneaking a call in, but it's nowhere near as crazy as it was.

I think the 'hands free allowed' laws are even worse because it lets people believe that this is somehow safe. It's not a matter of where your hands are, it's whare your mind is. Pay attention! - TF

[LightBright]

I still see a lot of drivers in california talking on there cell phones (mainly in L.A) while driving. The only time those people will ever be sorry is if they accidentally kill someone. By then it would have been to late!

[OldClicker]

I still see a lot of drivers in california talking on there cell phones (mainly in L.A) while driving. The only time those people will ever be sorry is if they accidentally kill someone. By then it would have been to late!

They will still only be sorry that they got caught. Also, I wouldn't call something so easily preventable an accident. - TF

[drg]

All the 'mitigation' going on right now. Too many people have latched on to phrases and wording that includes mitigate, mitigation, and mitigating.

They need a paradigm shift.

[MNRyan]

Stereotypes drive me insane (ie Computer repairmen are geeks and rude, young people are lazy and inconsiderate) I guess these are the ones that would pertain to me and that I find obnoxious, but there are many out there. :mad5:

[Shanxix]

The latest peeve on this forum seems to be this bvaa individual who has spammed most threads if not all.

[ksbryan0]

Shanxix, you beat me to it! Regular email spam is bad enough, but garbage like bvaa is up to drives me nuts.