= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Thomas comments on How not to be a Naïve Computationalist - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (34)
Use the "<==". Since the second implies the first.
I am just a naïve computationalist, though.
This here is a good example of how computationalist thoght may get lost sometimes, even though it was a joke. It is explanatory: The second does not imply the first, it is more awesome, it will give you more information, but not necessarily the same information. It will only be the same *for the purposes of not becoming a Naïve computationalist. The implication could get lost in context (not that the XOR couldn't)
Speaking of thoughts getting lost ...
You are using the word XOR incorrectly. It has an accepted meaning - it is not a word that is available for you to attach a private definition to. The actual meaning of a recommendation to "do A XOR B" is "do A or do B but don't do both because whichever one you do second will undo the good effect of whichever one you did first". If the meaning you wish to convey is "do A or do B or do both (though both is not necessary)" then you should use the word OR. At least in English.
Please correct this. For some reason, it offends me far more than would a picture of Mohammed.
To expand on that point, I should also point out that that more generally "do A_1 XOR A_2 ... XOR A_n" means not "do precisely one of A_1 through A_n", but rather "do an odd number of A_1 through A_n".
Ok, I need then to know what established symbol means: "do precisely one of A1 through An"
"Do precisely one of A_1 through A_n". There's nothing wrong with writing things out longhand.
(Except, as Perplexed points out, I don't think that's really what you mean - would it really be such a problem to do more than one?)
If the purpose is to be mininmal, yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_or
"one or the other but not both." From Wikipedia.
I begin to think I was not that wrong......
Your use may be technically correct but it is very misleading. If you simply say "do A or B", it's clear that doing one is sufficient so a person who wants to save effort will only do one. Specifying "xor" therefore suggests that there is some additional harm to doing both, beyond nonminimality.
Do A ∈{A1, A2, ... An} ?
Although in this case, I don't think there's any harm to come from doing more than one of A1 through An; wouldn't "at least one" work better?
I got that usage of 'XOR' from one of Pinker's books I believe. But given my utilitarianism, I'm postponing my knowledge so that those who suffer mohammed-level pain stop experiencing it, and using simple 'OR'