P

p
>humans do not exist

q
>computers exist

>if human do not exist, then computers exist
>somehow this is a true statement

So you're telling me every single programming language is based on a fallacy?

Attached: 1663151792391575.png (476x311, 11.25K)

Falsehood implies anything, pleb. Learn to logic.

Glad to see you've started your semester in formal logic, please finish it before attempting to talk again

>IT'S TRUE BECAUSE... IT JUST IS OK?!?!?!

Yes computers can exist even if humans never existed. God can simply create a Lenovo ThinkPad E15 Business Laptop (2022 Model), 15.6" FHD IPS Display, Intel Core i5-1135G7, Intel Iris Xe Graphics, 16GB RAM, 512GB PCIe SSD, Backlit Keyboard, Fingerprint Reader, WIFI 6, Win10 Pro whenever he wants. It's called thinking logically and once you know anything about logic you can solve anything

The only case where computers don't exist is the case where computers don't exist. Can't you even logic?

I did this too many years ago, don't you need to negate p?
¬p -> q

retard

Shut the fuck up

Attached: 1634007270315.jpg (1212x1164, 81.04K)

You are fundamentally misunderstanding the meaning of the conditional statement

Po because for p -> q, !p implies nothing about the truthiness of q.
You are confusing it with p q: if and only if p, then q.

>If OP is a faggot, he will make a shit thread.
p: OP is a faggot
q: OP makes a shit thread

>OP is a faggot and he makes a shit thread
True, because the conclusion is supported by the hypothesis

>OP is not a faggot, but he creates a shit thread
The hypothesis could be true, even if the evidence given does not support it. Evaluates to true.

>OP is not a faggot and he does not create a shit thread
evaluates to true, because negation of the hypothesis supports the negation of the conclusion

>OP is a faggot but he does not create a shit thread
The conclusion yields false, but the hypothesis is true. This means the statement must be false, since the evidence does not support the conclusion

> CS brainlet filtered by mathematics #948358

that is the axiom that formal logic is built off
there is no physical law that states that the laws of formal logic are actually logical

Okay, think of it like this, "computers exists" is true no matter what, if I say "The fact that we live in the world of Terminator 2 implies that computers exists." doesn't fucking mean that computers don't exist. In the same way ""If we live in the world of Terminator 2 then the Terminator exists." is sound logic but it doesn't mean Arnold Schwarzenegger is a robot. This is what means with "falsehood implies anything", the counterpart of this is that True™ things will NEVER imply something false, that's why they are fucking True™.
This is obviously bait (hopefully), because being filtered by truth tables is fucking sad.

Attached: 602.jpg (1242x1191, 161.93K)

>p: humans do not exist
>!q: computers do not exist
This situation was true at some point, therefore it is possible for p and !q to be true. p->q is therefore not true by the second line of the true table.

Attached: 1621222444386.jpg (481x604, 78.17K)

O = OP exists
P = dicksucking exists

O P --> PQ
T T --> T

niggers bastardizing my propositional logic, fuck you and your lack of understanding OP

Attached: 1661822503538194.jpg (607x1024, 151.62K)

Okay mindlets, listen up. /sci/ here to save the day. P implies Q from symbolic logic is not the same thing as a conditional from programming, despite using similar language.

P IMPLIES Q is logically equivalent to (NOT P OR Q). Your board doesn't support Latex, but you wouldn't understand the proof if I showed it to you. Instead, look at the table to verify this, you fat, retarded chimpanzee.

You can now see your P IMPLIES Q sentence can be rewritten as "humans exist, or computers exist", which is true.

This is however, not meaningful. To show why, let's try something silly. Let's have both P and Q be "Humans don't exist". Now speaking NOT P OR Q out loud gives you "Humans do exist or humans don't exist." which is a vacuous truth.

>tl;dr: OP failed Intro to Symbolic Logic and wants to make it Any Forums's problem.

Attached: negate-conditional-equivalent-with-truth-table.png (534x522, 9.16K)

> here

That is where I stopped reading.

>I'm proud of being retarded!
Do whatever you want, smooth brain. The explanation is there for your betters.