overview for parsnip283874

6

submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by parsnip283874 to c/source_ports

0 comments fedilink

A source port for Doom that supports vanilla and Boom formats. Fast and highly-configurable, my Doom source port of preference.

One Can Scarcely Help Clarifying Him: On Fyodor Dostoevsky’s "The Brothers Karamazov" By Michael R. Katz in c/books@lemmy.ml

[–] parsnip283874 1 points 2 years ago

Has anyone here read the Katz translation? How does it compare to the other two?

One Can Scarcely Help Clarifying Him: On Fyodor Dostoevsky’s "The Brothers Karamazov" By Michael R. Katz in c/books@lemmy.ml

Whats your favorite enemy type? in c/doom@lemmy.ml

[–] parsnip283874 1 points 2 years ago

Pain elemental, and yes it’s a nuisance. Hiding behind a wall and peek-a-boo shooting twice or thrice with a SSG is your best strat.

Stuart Broad announces his retirement in c/cricket@lemmy.world

[–] parsnip283874 2 points 2 years ago

Nah not surprised at all, I knew good ol’ England could do it ;)

2023 Ashes 5th Test, Day 5 Highlights | Wide World of Sports in c/cricket@lemmy.world

[–] parsnip283874 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I was actually convinced at stumps on day 4 that Aus were going to win, but Eng managed to pull through in the end. Also glad this series is done, having an emotional connection to one of the teams playing in a Test series is fun, but gets quite stressful.

However, I’m with Ponting that the ball change was poor and should be investigated. Shame one bad decision made such an impact on the game.

Stuart Broad announces his retirement in c/cricket@lemmy.world

[–] parsnip283874 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Seems fair enough except for the finishing on a high wrt this test I suspect, but maybe I’ll be pleasantly surprised.

Stuart Broad announces his retirement in c/cricket@lemmy.world

[–] parsnip283874 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children)

Was there another reason he gave beyond wanting to be with his family? Didn’t really see anything else in the Cricinfo article.

2023 Ashes 5th Test, Day 3 Highlights | Wide World of Sports in c/cricket@lemmy.world

[–] parsnip283874 1 points 2 years ago

Looks like a minimum of 3 hours play today (possibility of rain from 3) and probably whole day’s play tomorrow. Looks like the weather won’t be ruining another Test.

Stuart Broad announces his retirement in c/cricket@lemmy.world

[–] parsnip283874 5 points 2 years ago (7 children)

What a damn, damn shame

5th Ashes Test underway in c/cricket@lemmy.world

[–] parsnip283874 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

One day in, and with the way Australia have been carrying on I don’t think an English win is likely. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if we see the same scores from the last test, just with the teams swapped.

Interesting logic proof: (a OR b) -> c = (a -> c) AND (b -> c) in c/math

[–] parsnip283874 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I’m not sure but could it be because, in your first truth table, you assumed the truth value of (a OR b) -> c to be true and you are finding the truth values of c that correspond with pairs of values of a and b?

However, in the second table you are finding the truth values of ~(a OR b) OR c that correspond with truth values of c as well as a and b so just like you said, you cannot compare the two tables you present above.

To get the truth table for the proposition (a OR b) -> c, you would find the corresponding truth values to those of a, b and c (like you did in the first table). Something like this:

A B C   A OR B   (A OR B) -> C
000       0             1
001       0             1
010       1             0
011       1             1
100       1             0
101       1             1
110       1             0
111       1             1

since it’s possible for the conditional proposition to be false (i.e. if either A or B are true yet C is false)

Echoes - Pink Floyd in c/psychedelic_music

[–] parsnip283874 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The best track in Meddle and maybe in PF’s whole discography too

9

Interesting logic proof: (a OR b) -> c = (a -> c) AND (b -> c) (mathb.in)

submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by parsnip283874 to c/math

7 comments fedilink

(a OR b) -> c

= ~(a OR b) OR c

= (~a AND ~b) OR c

= (~a OR c) AND (~b OR c)

= (a -> c) AND (b -> c) as required

I haven’t formally learnt logic so I’m not sure if my proof is what you’d call rigorous, but the result is pretty useful for splitting up conditionals in proofs like some of the number theory proofs I’ve been trying. E.g.

Show that if a is greater than 2 and a^m + 1 is prime, then a is even and m is a power of 2

In symbolic form this is:

∀a >= 2 ( a^m + 1 is prime -> a is even AND m is a power of 2 )

The contrapositive is:

∀a >= 2 ( a is odd OR m is NOT a power of 2 -> a^m + 1 is composite )

and due to the result above, this becomes

∀a >= 2 ( a is odd -> a^m + 1 is composite ) AND ( m is NOT a power of 2 -> a^m + 1 is composite )

so you can just prove two simpler conditionals instead of one more complicated one.