throwaway13qf85

Intuitively, it is to indicate degree of 'truthiness'. Certainly false {F} is less truthy than either both true and false {T,F} and neither true nor false {}, which are in turn less truthy than certainly true {T}. The Hasse diagram indicates that there is no relationship between {} and {T,F} in terms of level of truthiness.

More mathematically, you can think of the Hasse diagram as a lattice, with the meet and join operations being AND and OR. For example, we are used to thinking of the expression

  p AND q

as being true if p is true and q is true. But what if we have four values: {}, {T}, {F} and {T,F}? The Hasse diagram tells us how to interpret expression like this - p AND q is the meet (greatest lower bound) of p and q, and p OR q is the join (least upper bound) of p and q. So for example,

  {F} AND {T}   = {F}
  {F} OR  {T}   = {T}

  {F} AND {}    = {F}
  {F} AND {T,F} = {F}
  {F} OR  {}    = { }
  {F} OR  {T,F} = {T,F}

  {T} OR  {T,F} = {T}
  {T} OR  {}    = {T}

  { } OR  {T,F} = {T} // I think..!
  { } AND {T,F} = {F}
  { } OR  { }   = { }
  { } AND { }   = { }

The Hasse diagram in the article makes sure that expressions like this agree with our intuition in the cases where we have intuition for what the result should be, and give us a way to interpret expressions consistently when our intuitions fail us.

We're used to seeing Hasse diagrams for subsets of a set S used to indicate inclusion, in which case you would have {} < {F}, but you can have a valid poset structure that's not based on inclusion.

In case anyone is turned off by the expectation of wishy-washy flim-flam, it's worth noting that Graham Priest may be a professor of philosophy, but is most well known for his work in logic, particularly in non-standard logics (i.e. not propositional or predicate logic) that allow non-boolean truth values, or weaken or remove some of the axioms of classical logic.

I assume that what's relevant here will be his work on paraconsistent logics (which allow contradictions) but I think an equally interesting line of work is linear logics. It's of interest to computer scientists because of its relationship to linear type theory (in the same way that the Curry-Howard correspondence links type theory and classical logic) and because it has close relationships with quantum computing.

In particular, you are not allowed to delete or duplicate elements/propositions/types (corresponding to physical processes that cannot arbitrarily create or destroy particles, the "no deletion theorem" and "no cloning theorem" of quantum information theory), so functions of the type

  duplicate :: a -> (a, a)

and

  delete :: a -> ()

are not allowed in a linear type system. Practically, this means that many operations can be optimized by the compiler to in-place mutations, because it is guaranteed that there is only ever one reference to a particular object.

> Do people ever go to poor areas to enjoy themselves?

Absolutely! There are many poor areas in London (Whitechapel, Brixton or Dalston, for example) but the idea that you would have to avoid them is crazy. In fact there are great reasons to visit them - the best Indian or Pakistani food in the city is in Whitechapel, the music scene in Brixton is amazing, there are great clubs in Dalston if you don't mind the hipsters.

How has SF let things get so bad that there is a major area of the city that people are told to actively avoid because of all the homeless people?

So your advice is - to enjoy SF, stay in the expensive areas, and get a taxi if you need to go through the poor areas, or the parts where there might be homeless people?

I don't think you understand what the phrase "elephant in the room" means. If lots of people are talking about something (and certainly, a lot of people are talking about the tech sector vs the rest of the economy) then it's not the elephant in the room.

William Faulkner once criticised Ernest Hemingway by saying that he "had never been known to use a word that might send the reader to the dictionary."

Hemingway responded by saying, "Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words? He thinks I don't know the ten-dollar words. I know them all right. But there are older and simpler and better words, and those are the ones I use."

This is very much a beginner's book. When I interviewed for internships in the summer of 2008, the interviewers expected that I would already be familiar with a large portion of the content of this book.

I don't think there's anything wrong with what they say. Your chance of winning one round of RPS is 1/3. Out of three games you win once, lose once and draw once on average.

If you replay when a draw occurs, then of course you have a 1/2 chance of winning.

To clarify for the poster who asked you the question, playing aggressively might mean better more than your hand otherwise dictates, but it might also mean betting more often even if you don't change your bet size.

For example, you might always fold low pairs 22-66 initially (and perhaps conspicuously reveal that you folded them) but then start raising with them later. If your opponents were paying attention, then (a) they will think you have a good hand, and may be scared into folding right now, but (b) even if they don't, they won't suspect you of having a low pair, so that if e.g. a 2-6 comes up on the board and gives you three of a kind, you have an advantage because your opponents won't consider that you have this hand.

Is that the Georgia Tech/Tucker Balch course?

I'm amazed that GT let him teach that course. It's full of errors, omissions and bad habits. I vaguely followed along, and the most noticeable thing was how much the students complained about the low quality of the course.

The only result of someone implementing the advice in that course is that they'd lose a lot of money quite quickly.