The New Sudoku Players' Forum

[Ajò Dimonios]

Mith I have given you too much of my time. “Non c’è peggior sordo di chi non vuol sentire”. You should try harder.

explanation: how it is completely useless to talk to those who have no interest in listening to what we say and therefore do not pay attention to us

[mith]

I have listened to what you have said. Every word. Some of those words have been incorrect. Whether it is a language barrier, ignorance, or willful trolling, I don't think anyone particularly cares at this point. You're wrong, and either too ignorant to know you are wrong or too proud to admit you are wrong. "There are two kinds of fools: those who can't change their opinions and those who won't."

If you are interested in learning why you are wrong, I am here as an educator.

But if you can't answer simple questions about logic, I suggest you stop trying to argue about logic.

[eleven]

Just a word, why i did not criticize totuan's definition:
It was clear to me, that he would not construct a link from the solution, but from an explanation derived from the candidates grid, which guarantees, that one side would be true in the solution (if one exists).

Are you perhaps suggesting the same was not obvious to everyone (except maybe the troll, but who cares)?

?? But in this sense his definition is the same as the old one, and what you followed is your own fantasy.

In this sense it was correct, but sloppy formulated (due to language barriers).

I don't think it was sloppily formulated at all. In fact, it's the only definition of a strong link I've seen that doesn't have any ambiguity. That's why I use it myself. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's exactly what David's strong link/inference definition implies, even if it has not been explicitly stated.

I cannot answer for both. As i read them, they don't allow your "conclusions".

it is not mith's definition, but the one, which is used by every AIC user for a decade

Apparently neither totuan nor I are AIC users.

Yes, i know, that you like your own definitions, though the existing ones are clear enough. I am not interested.
And you cannot speak for totuan either.

the really official definition is the one, our honored bot gave: at least one side has to be true (either obviously or by explanation).

Define 'true'. (Without that definition, the above definition doesn't mean anything. It, if anything, is sloppily formulated.)

Ah that's your trouble.
In a strong link true means, that if the other side would not be part of a solution, then a solution can only exist, when this side is part of it.
In a weak link true means, that if one side is part of a solution, then no solution can exist with the other side.
So simple. As it always was.

[Ajò Dimonios]

Mith ,I thought it was only Space to use the "vulgari eloquentia" I see that you are no less than him.

[mith]

Statement: Paolo is ignorant OR Paolo is not ignorant. (True)
Statement: Paolo is not ignorant OR Paolo is not too proud to admit he is wrong. (...Paolo, is this one true?)
Statement: Paolo is not too proud to admit he is wrong OR Paolo is too proud to admit he is wrong. (True)
Conclusion: Paolo is ignorant OR Paolo is too proud to admit he is wrong. (QED? Maybe one of my premises is faulty...)

(If you don't want to be called ignorant: A. Don't be ignorant. B. Don't insult someone in another language and presume you can get away with it.)

[SpAce]

In a strong link true means, that if the other side would not be part of a solution, then a solution can only exist, when this side is part of it.
In a weak link true means, that if one side is part of a solution, then no solution can exist with the other side.

Why didn't you say that in the first place? That one I can buy. It's indeed better and more general than totuan's definition, and doesn't allow my (purely academic) conclusions.

Btw, if that is "the official definition" and should be common knowledge, can you tell me where it's actually written like that? I'd like to have a link to point to when things like these are discussed the next time.

Added. I like the logic, but not the wording of those definitions. They're not AIC-like because they're formulated as if-then clauses as in implications. What I want is equivalent logic but with the "at least one" and "at most one" wordings we've been using throughout this discussion.

I think totuan's definition should work with minor changes: at least one must be true in every solution if any exist. Similarly for a weak link: at most one can be true in any solution if any exist. Would you agree?

So simple. As it always was.

Happy now? You just won your first AIC argument against me in recent times. The difference is, I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong. I just learned something new, which is awesome.

--
Added. PS. It is telling that your response to my criticism of your original definition was:

Ah that's your trouble.

My trouble? The actual trouble was in what you gave, because it was ambiguous. The trouble was not in my understanding of it. What you replaced it with had nothing to do with the original.

[Ajò Dimonios]

Mith does not know the work of Dante Alighieri, the true great poet "De Vulgari Eloquentia", so he does not know. Consequence of this he is a true ignorant. The "DeVulgari Eloquenzia" is not an insult it is treated in Latino.

[mith]

I was talking about being called deaf.

[mith]

(Nice try though. Chemistry, foreign languages, and literature haven't worked out for you as "gotcha" moments. What's the next distraction from logic? Sports?)

[Ajò Dimonios]

that's a popular proverb. No it means you are deaf.

[mith]

Yes, I know the proverb. Are we going to argue about whether the proverb was intended to be insulting now?

(For the record, I am not calling you generally ignorant - just on the logic being discussed. Your knowledge elsewhere is completely irrelevant to this conversation.)

[Ajò Dimonios]

What you say I think is much more offensive than the proverb. It seems absurd to me that you have not translated into a language more suited to you the elementary meaning of ¬A = A = B = ¬B => ¬A = ¬B which is composed of 4 strong inferences, two assumptions, and two NOT and a symbol of implication.

[mith]

I understand perfectly well what the symbols mean. If you read my posts, you would understand that it is the implication I am disputing, not the assumptions or symbols.

I will try this one more time:

Question 12: Statement A is true and Statement B is true. Which of the following statements are true? (More than one may be true.)
a. ¬A = A
b. A = B
c. B = ¬B
d. ¬A = ¬B
e. ¬A = A = B = ¬B
Question 13: What am I saying you think?

[Ajò Dimonios]

They are all true, when A is true and B is true because the current definition of strong inference is redundant

[mith]

Cool.

Question 14: Statement A is true and Statement B is true. Which of the following statements are true? (More than one may be true.)
a. ¬A OR A
b. A OR B
c. B OR ¬B
d. ¬A OR ¬B
e. (¬A OR A) AND (A OR B) AND (B OR ¬B)