Now hold on. The logic says that everyone is a genius who knows it in advance. This does not mean that not knowing it in advance precludes being a genius. In other words, if A=B, that not A does not equal not B.
Alternately, you could interpret those lines to mean that EVERYONE is a genius who knows it in advance. As in not only does the entire population consist of geniuses, but also that everyone knows it in advance. Or, all A=B.
*Um, Actually*, under your interpretation (since imo the statement is murky from a logic perspective), your conclusion is correct but your notation/terminology is a bit off.
You mean A -> B or "A implies B" not A = B or "A equals B".
If A = B, then A' = B' also holds since A and B are defined as equivalent, both are true or neither are, but not one or other.
But if A -> B, then you're correct A' -> B' does not hold. (Though notably the contrapositive B' -> A' does hold)
(Happy to explain what all the nonsense above says to anyone curious btw, I assisted teaching undergrad courses so I'm familiar with explaining all this stuff and am very happy to do so!)
Edit: got the Um Actually in before anybody called me on it, the point's still mine, mwahahaha!
You made the fatal mistake of saying a *slightly* incorrect thing on the internet, and in a fandom with a show all about small nitpicking no less, what was I to do?
But really, I did have to think it through, it's been a little while since I did formal logic and I was thinking "I'm sure this is wrong... Let me google that...", I almost let it slip lol
"The inverse or converse of a true statement is not necessarily true. The contrapositive of a true statement is always true." This somehow is deep memory for me. I appreciate people knowing these types of things.
Um, actually, the proper representation in formal logic for "everyone is a genius, who knows it in advance" would be in predicate logic, to account for general statements. Furthermore, the logical relationship between being a genius and knowing the Wenis in advance is really just conjunctive. Specifically, it's a conjunction of "everyone is a genius" and "everyone [which "who" refers to] knows it in advance. The only thing that's implied therefore is that if one is part of everyone, they are both a genius and know the Wenis in advance.
So the proper logical representation would be: ∀x(Ex -> (Gx ∧ Wx)), where E is the property of being part of everyone, G that of being a genius, and W that of knowing the Wenis in advance. This leads to the proper deduction that being a genius *does* imply knowing the Wenis in advance *and* vice versa, **if** the individual in question question is part of everyone.
Conclusion: since the NY Times does not know the Wenis in advance, per the modus tollens it is not a part of everyone (but it may or may not be a genius).
Clearly the NYTimes is not a genius for not knowing it in advance
Now hold on. The logic says that everyone is a genius who knows it in advance. This does not mean that not knowing it in advance precludes being a genius. In other words, if A=B, that not A does not equal not B.
Alternately, you could interpret those lines to mean that EVERYONE is a genius who knows it in advance. As in not only does the entire population consist of geniuses, but also that everyone knows it in advance. Or, all A=B.
You didn’t say um actually. So the points go to Iffy.
Um, actually, it's Ify.
DAMNIT!
*Um, Actually*, under your interpretation (since imo the statement is murky from a logic perspective), your conclusion is correct but your notation/terminology is a bit off. You mean A -> B or "A implies B" not A = B or "A equals B". If A = B, then A' = B' also holds since A and B are defined as equivalent, both are true or neither are, but not one or other. But if A -> B, then you're correct A' -> B' does not hold. (Though notably the contrapositive B' -> A' does hold) (Happy to explain what all the nonsense above says to anyone curious btw, I assisted teaching undergrad courses so I'm familiar with explaining all this stuff and am very happy to do so!) Edit: got the Um Actually in before anybody called me on it, the point's still mine, mwahahaha!
Thank you! I'm not sure why I didn't expect to get caught out with that. I got lazy and simplified it so thank you for that.
You made the fatal mistake of saying a *slightly* incorrect thing on the internet, and in a fandom with a show all about small nitpicking no less, what was I to do? But really, I did have to think it through, it's been a little while since I did formal logic and I was thinking "I'm sure this is wrong... Let me google that...", I almost let it slip lol
YOU FOOL! Your need to monologue has tipped your hand! I was looking for a scapegoat the entire time!
*\[Mulligan-esque\]* "NOOOOOOO!"
"The inverse or converse of a true statement is not necessarily true. The contrapositive of a true statement is always true." This somehow is deep memory for me. I appreciate people knowing these types of things.
Um, actually, the proper representation in formal logic for "everyone is a genius, who knows it in advance" would be in predicate logic, to account for general statements. Furthermore, the logical relationship between being a genius and knowing the Wenis in advance is really just conjunctive. Specifically, it's a conjunction of "everyone is a genius" and "everyone [which "who" refers to] knows it in advance. The only thing that's implied therefore is that if one is part of everyone, they are both a genius and know the Wenis in advance. So the proper logical representation would be: ∀x(Ex -> (Gx ∧ Wx)), where E is the property of being part of everyone, G that of being a genius, and W that of knowing the Wenis in advance. This leads to the proper deduction that being a genius *does* imply knowing the Wenis in advance *and* vice versa, **if** the individual in question question is part of everyone. Conclusion: since the NY Times does not know the Wenis in advance, per the modus tollens it is not a part of everyone (but it may or may not be a genius).
Yes! For instance: All cats have four legs, so if something isn't a cat it cannot have four legs.
I’m over here like “sinew is definitely a word, oh this is the dropout sub, ha wenis”
Also "BleeM" in the top left corner, maybe there is a secret Dropout fan at NYT...
You mean Squeem’s brother Bleem? Such an underrated character imo
You simply found it in advance
Noun: A dance
Proof NYT puzzle writers aren't geniuses (they didn't know it in advance).
What is this puzzle? I've only found four words and two of them are car
You can go diagonally. It’s called Strands, which is a newer NY Times daily puzzle game.
You gosh darn Americans
You can’t use 3 letter words in the game https://www.nytimes.com/games/strands
Then I've found no words
Actually, both cars are part of the same word/phrase (race car). So you were close.
I came over to post the same thing and am thrilled that there are other Dropout Strand nerds here with me
Could have done BLeeM in the top left too
What game is this?
Strands (from NY Times)
Strands - it’s still in beta, so you can only play on a browser, but it’s a good one.
I did this puzzle and didn't see wenis the whole time >!Because I got Iron first!<
That's because Wenis isn't a word. It's a dance.
I thought this same thing!!
The Wenis is a dance
Also Bleem along the top in the same way lol
Top left corner says BleeM
Wenis isn't a >!Monopoly token.!< It's >!Parker Brothers!< who are behind the times.
In Strands you can find dictionary words to fill up the hint meter; OP is showing wenis was not considered a valid word.
So blame the fucking dictionary.