http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/chew

Alt textThere was a fairly intricate debate on an early version of this posted to bluesky, the contention being over whether OR was sufficient. I think the ORs have it, but XOR is a funnier word, so there.

Bonus panelBonus panel

top 17 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 24 points 1 year ago

"Is your dog male or female?"

"Yes"

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Stupid alt text stole my comment.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    i came here to chew bubblegum and kick ass.

    this is the correct order of intended actions if this is meant as a citation.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] 10 points 1 year ago (6 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I admit I had to look it up, but Duke Nukem, in a horrible misquote/steal said: "It's time to kick ass and chew bubblegum. And I'm all out of gum." So not only did he get the order of actions wrong, but messed with the opening as well :D

    Also I thought Duke Nukem never released!!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    I came to kick gum and eat ass. And I'm all out of gum.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    In the English language "or" is equivalent to the Boolean "xor". The English equivalent to the Boolean "or" is "and/or".

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Only sometimes. English is very much not so consistent.

    Example: If I'm asked "Do you want fries with that? Or a shake?" It's perfectly reasonable* for me to respond with "Both please."

    (*Linguistically, not so reasonable for my health.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Just respond like logic operators expect you to

    Yes

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago*

    Yeah in this instance "yes" would cover both and if you want to answer with either specific then you name them

    "fries, thanks, no shake"

    "a shake please, yes"

    Those all seems clear to me

    Edit although if you just answer "yes" the cashier should prolly confirm "both?", if he's a pro.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    But even logically it is an and. He came to do both, the logic statement won't comply until he has done both, nowhere there is he saying that he is going to do both at the same time, only that his intention, by the end, is to have done both.

    If he fulfills his intentions, he will have chewed bubblegum and kicked ass by the time he leaves, but that's again up for interpretation because he didn't specify if he's capable for either or any kind of timeframe.

    ...I did take a course on what's basically advanced logic in 4th year of CS. I believe we proved up until exponentials via logic proofs, based on some basic axioms like 1+1 and number ordering.

    It's fun to logically prove that 2 + 3 = 5 from the basic symbols 1 and +.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    This logic would still be propositional as there are no quantifiers.

  • source