Mathematicians say it is likely alien probes have reached earth.

a reply to: Harte

I stand corrected. Is the term "Logic Equation" wrong?

Each row in the truth table corresponds to a product term, which is the product of each of the inputs or their complement, depending on if the entry in the truth table has a 0 or 1. The logic equation is the logical sum of the product terms where the output is true.

www.cs.fsu.edu...

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Harte

I stand corrected. Is the term "Logic Equation" wrong?

Each row in the truth table corresponds to a product term, which is the product of each of the inputs or their complement, depending on if the entry in the truth table has a 0 or 1. The logic equation is the logical sum of the product terms where the output is true.

www.cs.fsu.edu...

Technically and semantically, yes it is wrong.

The word "equation" means there's an "equals" sign in the expression.

It means what it means, no matter who has misused it.
Added: The equation in your example is not an expression of logic. It is the expression of the sum of elements in a truth table.

Each element of the truth table would be the result of logical expression.

Harte

originally posted by: ben555
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

read my above post. thank you

It didn't help much.

a reply to: Harte

Technically and semantically, yes it is wrong.

More importantly, its not my fault.

We often face instances in which there is inadequate information to make a decision via formal, analytic reasoning. The psychology of reasoning recognizes an alternative route. Intuitive reasoning is based on accumulated experience of how human thinking works and how human efforts tend to pan out. One may perceive certain patterns in these, which repeat again and again, under various challenges and circumstances. If so, one is justified in holding that it is more likely that such a pattern is currently being reenacted, rather than it is not.

a reply to: Ross 54

I think I understand where you are coming from and I don't disagree. I have been looking at the Copernican principle that you mentioned before and how that might be applied here.

I think you are equating these statements of belief:
"the earth is the center of the solar system"
"we are alone in the universe"

I think that they are similar but I think most people believe that we are not alone in the universe. People that hold onto this belief without considering that it may not be true would fall into the pattern that you mention. It is certainly something to keep in mind when examining the topic.

I think that the most commonly held belief today is that we are NOT alone in the universe. The only thing that I am saying is that its is not provable using statistics.

The only thing we can say statistically is that we ARE alone in the universe. This is consistent with the fact that we only know of one time that life has emerged.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Harte

Technically and semantically, yes it is wrong.

More importantly, its not my fault.

Quite true!

Harte

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Ross 54

I think I understand where you are coming from and I don't disagree. I have been looking at the Copernican principle that you mentioned before and how that might be applied here.

I think you are equating these statements of belief:
"the earth is the center of the solar system"
"we are alone in the universe"

I think that they are similar but I think most people believe that we are not alone in the universe. People that hold onto this belief without considering that it may not be true would fall into the pattern that you mention. It is certainly something to keep in mind when examining the topic.

The Copernican principle is based on meticulous observations, while the other principle (The Ridiculan Principle? LOL) is based on what we "feel" like.

Not at all even remotely related.

Harte

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Ross 54

I think I understand where you are coming from and I don't disagree. I have been looking at the Copernican principle that you mentioned before and how that might be applied here.

I think you are equating these statements of belief:
"the earth is the center of the solar system"
"we are alone in the universe"

I think that they are similar but I think most people believe that we are not alone in the universe. People that hold onto this belief without considering that it may not be true would fall into the pattern that you mention. It is certainly something to keep in mind when examining the topic.

I think that the most commonly held belief today is that we are NOT alone in the universe. The only thing that I am saying is that its is not provable using statistics.

The only thing we can say statistically is that we ARE alone in the universe. This is consistent with the fact that we only know of one time that life has emerged.

I am equating the statistically derived result that we are alone in the universe with the geocentric theory. I am equating the intuitively derived probability that we are not alone with the heliocentric theory.

a reply to: Ross 54

I am equating the intuitively derived probability that we are not alone with the heliocentric theory.

thats interesting because I often say that belief in life in the universe is more like a innate knowledge. Intuitive might be a better way to express that. Do you have any links to what you are describing? I think there is something to that.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

im sure it didnt help you. if you had read it you would of understand that i can not discuss my beliefs with someone who trolled me for my use of the word "logic" in this sentence

ross,zeta

for me equations dont mean much to me. dont really understand them. common sense says it is full of life,simple.i dont need a PHD to use logic.

being such a close minded person unable to think outside the box is a waste of the human brain(not aimed at zeta&ross)

we as humans seem to sit and wait to be told about alien life,never going to happen. WE have to find it ourselves,its there for us to find (look up to the stars on a clear night). there is good evidence out there but it needs pieced together. the longer we fight it the harder it is to learn.
if we could get 40-50% of the population to demand the truth the governments will cave.
the governments are meant to work for the people. but we let them tell us anything we want to hear,whatever is easiest and we hand over our hard earned money to let country go broke,barely able to feed and clothe your children as the top 1% that run the country's seem to get richer?
so yes lets wait to be told the truth.

i high-light this point...

for me equations dont mean much to me. dont really understand them. common sense says it is full of life,simple.i dont need a PHD to use logic.

so i had said "common sense". do you need a PHD to use logic? you trolled me over the word "logic" without knowing its proper meaning!

next time to you reply to someone try reading their posts. it might save you behaving like you did and showing yourself up.

your credibility as a de-bunker/skeptic has gone way down. making stuff up and cant even remember what has been said in your own posts. oh dear.

Good. Because I am neither. I am a Super Genius!

wow

a reply to: ben555

Sorry, I'm not really following.

a reply to: ben555

Honestly, I don't understand what you're trying to say. I misused the word equation but it wasn't really my fault. I think that is obvious. Is that it?

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Ross 54

I am equating the intuitively derived probability that we are not alone with the heliocentric theory.

thats interesting because I often say that belief in life in the universe is more like a innate knowledge. Intuitive might be a better way to express that. Do you have any links to what you are describing? I think there is something to that.

Below are four links-- two to quotations on intuition, two to articles on same.
www.goodreads.com...
www.goodreads.com...
www.brainpickings.org...
www.brainpickings.org...

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Harte

The Copernican principle is based on meticulous observations, while the other principle (The Ridiculan Principle? LOL) is based on what we "feel" like.

yes, but its the "Rediculian principle" with an "e" because I can't spell either.

I was trying not to associate the idea with you, since it wasn't yours, but it is ridiculous.

However, since you seem to want to claim it, have at it.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte
I was trying not to associate the idea with you, since it wasn't yours, but it is ridiculous.

However, since you seem to want to claim it, have at it.

Harte

I fully admit I don't always think things through or don't always say things correctly. No big deal. I'm kind of confused at the moment though on what we are talking about exactly. The post that you commented on probably wasn't expressed to well.