- cross-posted to:
- science_memes@mander.xyz
- cross-posted to:
- science_memes@mander.xyz
cross-posted from: https://mander.xyz/post/20024235
You must log in or register to comment.
This has explained the logic gates to me in a way I’d never understood before… And for that I’m glad.
Trick IMPLIES Treat
Trick or treat is a threat. They can’t refuse you treats because of the implication.
Treat OR NO Trick
Me (15 years old): "Go on then, show us a trick! *snickers derisively*
Me (5 minutes later, wiping the windows): *how the hell did they hide that many eggs under a cape*Smol chance for and
-
RPN: OR Trick Treat
-
Async multithreading: Treat Trick (loop closed) OR (stack trace)
-
So this is one of the cases where XOR is contextually meant by “or”. Although people have been known to do trick anyway, and it’s of course an empty threat most of the time, so more like treat CONST ~trick. Speaking of, where’s my identity, implication, inhibition and null Halloweens?
Trick XNOR treat is the definite chaotic option. Your house gets egged if and only if you give them candy.
Would “Trick NOT Treat” include only the area of Trick that does not overlap Treat?
Yes. Pedantically (as if this is a real language to begin with) it would be “Trick AND NOT Treat”.
