Wow a downvote in less time than the linked video takes to watch... I am shocked by this. Just kidding I expected this. BTW if you don't like "mansplaining" you'll probably like the video.
But not a disgusting remark like when you stated that 'the "genocide" of native Americans was a result of European diseases, not barbarism' in another thread and argued that evidence of deliberate killing was more like a "rounding error". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17023220 Not disgusting like that, right?
I suppose this is sarcasm but the results are quite intuitive to me. From my perspective, it's trivial to construct the truth tables for trivalent logic based on a sense of what "should" be in them. Maybe give it a try.
Well guess what. Your "sense" of what "should" be in them has no place in computer SCIENCE.
Computer SCIENCE is that ugly thing that tells us that three-valued logic gives rise to 19683 distinct binary logical operators, while two-valued has 16.
Computer SCIENCE is that ugly thing that tells us that if you want a computer language over a three-valued logic to be expressively complete, then you need to implement all of those 19683 logical binary operators one way or another. In the worst case, that's 19683 operator names for the programmer to remember. And you come here claiming that it's "trivial" because you have a "sense" of what the results ought to be ? That proves just one thing but site policy probably won't allow me to spell that out.
(In case you were wondering what the 16 names are in two-valued logic : they aren't needed because the system being two-valued gives rise to certain symmetries that gracefully allow us to reduce the set we need to remember to just {AND OR NOT} (or some such) which beautifully parallels the way we communicate in everyday life.)
Ah, you seem to be a bit nutters. So I'm not going to engage further but I do want to give you a serious response to the argument you seem to be making.
First, the same argument above is also an argument that, say, integers, are not "Computer SCIENCE".
More to the point, you might enjoy reading the work of Charles Pierce and other logicians of that era who began to explore many variations on formal logic. Note that just as many operations arise from trinary relations in bivalent logic. Are binary relations "Computer SCIENCE", but not trinary or higher relations? Before you answer, you might want to look into whether all possible relations can be expressed using only binary relations (hint: nope).
Look deeper into the concept of functional completeness (with respect to a subset of operators), which you reference above without naming. You might be able to understand how many of those many trivalent operators are actually necessary to reason with (hint: not very many, hardly more than for bivalent logic, where, as you note, we only tend to use a few, and need not worry about it).
Consider also the relationship between operators folks have identified as useful in bivalent vs trivalent logic (hint: they not picking at random).
Could it be that just as with the 16 binary operators, many of which have relations to one another (e.g. inverses and complements, among others) that the trinary operators could fall into similar groups, which, making the 3^9 number you mentioned seem a whole lot less complex? Could that be why it's neither necessary nor customary to work with all the operators in either sort of logic?
Once you've caught up to state of the art in formal logic as of the 1930's you might have a new perspective -- perhaps you might even begin to let us know when "Computer SCIENCE" will catch up!
If you wanted that to be a real argument then you should have done the maths yourself. Without those maths you are doing nothing but gratuitious handwaving. I've done them for you and they prove me right (and you wrong at least where you say "hardly more than for bivalent logic").
Oh, and if you want to know why people don't want to find more "useful" operators than what they're used to from good old two-valued logic then I have a hint for you too : it's because they all immediately sense that their brains are not up to it as soon as they actually try (and my actually doing the maths has very clearly shown me why - so as you suggested to me "perhaps give it a try").
Clearly you are a theorist and not a practitioner. Dealing with the real world is far more complex than simply a YES or NO. Take a look at something called 9 valued logic - it will blow your mind if you are unable to handle 3 valued logic.
Don’t get me wrong - theory is important. The models that you develop though are only an approximation of the real world.
Well FWIW the real theorists would be utterly offended if they knew I was being put in the same league as they.
The way I see it there are practitioners who care about theory (and take the bother to try and understand some of it, and even more so the consequences on their practical tasks) and there are those who don't.
(Aside : the world of fact-oriented modeling and especially FCO-IM - that's communication oriented modeling - has this stance that our databases are actually not modeled according to how the world is, they are modeled after how our comunications about the world are. An interesting distinction you might want to ponder a bit more deeply.)
And committed genocide against the original inhabitants and wiped out vast numbers of species. So, yeah, laws against Fake News as defined by a bunch of religious maniacs are great.
The "genocide" of native Americans was a result of European diseases, not barbarism.[1] As the people had no idea of germ theory, it is impossible to claim this was intentional.
Well that's an oversimplification. Diseases wiped out 90% before they ever saw a soldier. BUT...
'Instead, when the Indians were ready to leave, Trent wrote: "Out of our regard for them, we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect."' -- http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/spring04/warfare.c...
More commonly rumored to be used by British against Americans, though.
How is it an oversimplification if 90% of the population decrease was because of initial contact, not overt actions by the Europeans against the natives?
Do you really need this spelled out, like for real? Your statement that the genocide was not due to overt actions by Europeans is false. Accidentally wiping out 90% of a population through spread of disease is one thing. Deliberately killing off much of the rest is another.. you seem to think of that as a rounding error lol? I also provided a citation in which an American soldier admits to attempting to infect natives with small pox, despite his lack of germ theory. This also explicitly contradicts your account.
Yes, the number killed by warfare is a rounding error in this context. And finding a single instance where someone suggested (there is no proof it was carried out) trying to infect the natives is an anecdote, not proof of a systematic program of biological warfare.
I just provided the historical evidence. It was written in the past tense. Do you think he fictionalized his account so that hundreds of years later you'd have a stronger argument on HN lol? Can you think of another reason to fictionalize such an account? Will be be ignoring the fact that just a few posts ago you maintained with equal confidence that this could not have happened at all?
More importantly, the argument that American settlers and later government policies deliberately exterminated large populations of natives does not even remotely rest on this. Are you really conflating them? Are you that ignorant of the history?
You also don't seem to understand the concept of genocide, the whole point of which is that it's extra bad to kill off a population as it gets smaller.
What a disgusting excuse for a thought process. What is it do you think that's wrong with you that gives you such a deep need to ensure that your ancestors were morally pure?
Calling something an anecdote is not saying it is untrue. Anecdotes can be entirely true yet still tell us nothing about the prevalence or significance of the described activity. And I never stated that the kind of activity described in your anecdote never happened. (Please provide a citation for this assertion.) I stated such activity was not the reason for the reduction in the population of indigenous Americans. Who do you think my ancestors are and why do you think this? My ancestors had nothing to do with any of this. And there is no such thing as moral purity, not that I would care about it if there were. What we like we call good (moral) and what we don't like we call bad (immoral) and that's the entire scope of what "morality" is. You should engage in some self-reflection and evaluation regarding your own poor reasoning abilities before criticizing those of others.
What is the subject that intentional modifies in that sentence? That would be the 90% reduction in the native population, right? You aren't going to win any attempt at verbal/logical gamesmanship with me.
Yeah, I sort of assumed that the Berry paradox was going to be the point too - Anyone who found the shortest bit sequence could never display it on a web page since that would cause its transmission over the Internet, making it ineligible...
If you are basing this on the idea that something that can store a graph is a graph database, I'm not sure that definition really holds up.
It has been argued -- for example by Neo4j, which is one of the leading graph databases -- that index-free adjacency is an essential feature for any real graph database, or as they put it, "Index-free adjacency is the key differentiatior of native graph processing." https://neo4j.com/blog/why-graph-databases-are-the-future/
By my reading, this system doesn't feature index-free adjacency as it uses relational tables as the substrate for edges. Thus EdgeDB won't be especially well suited type of graph traversals and queries that people actually select graph databases for. Which seems like a compelling reason not to identify it as a graph database.
There are numerous studies showing positive effects of seltzer, and a few suggesting negative effects. But in what world can we compare this to diet soda?
