Comments on: Hot if and only if Fly http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/01/12/hot-if-and-only-if-fly/ Random samplings from a universe of ideas Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:20:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: It's Not Really a Party... | Cosmic Variance http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/01/12/hot-if-and-only-if-fly/#comment-309126 It's Not Really a Party... | Cosmic Variance Thu, 24 Jan 2008 22:55:51 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/01/12/hot-if-and-only-if-fly/#comment-309126 [...] and Einstein’s equation (twice), but some hurricanes, stem cells, allusion to a recent blog post, and a clever design for a lunar [...] [...] and Einstein’s equation (twice), but some hurricanes, stem cells, allusion to a recent blog post, and a clever design for a lunar [...]

]]> By: Dylan http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/01/12/hot-if-and-only-if-fly/#comment-308431 Dylan Wed, 16 Jan 2008 01:33:06 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/01/12/hot-if-and-only-if-fly/#comment-308431 I think much can be shed on the circular nature of the rappers argument, the poor grammar and the lack of details by realising that he is in fact and american rapper, and while he does purport to <em>be</em> fly he does not and in fact cannot boast being as smart as one. I think much can be shed on the circular nature of the rappers argument, the poor grammar and the lack of details by realising that he is in fact and american rapper, and while he does purport to be fly he does not and in fact cannot boast being as smart as one.

]]> By: B http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/01/12/hot-if-and-only-if-fly/#comment-308394 B Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:22:54 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/01/12/hot-if-and-only-if-fly/#comment-308394 <i>"and that frankly will not fly you will hear the shrillest highs and lowest lows with the windows down"</i> ~ <a href="http://www.lyricsdomain.com/20/the_postal_service/such_great_heights.html" rel="nofollow">The Postal Service</a> “and that frankly will not fly
you will hear the shrillest highs
and lowest lows with the windows down”
~ The Postal Service

]]> By: Huh? http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/01/12/hot-if-and-only-if-fly/#comment-308308 Huh? Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:43:45 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/01/12/hot-if-and-only-if-fly/#comment-308308 Sorry, not really. I'm actually all hat and not much cattle. For a sophisticated point of view on these things, you might try some introductions to topos theory. Sorry, not really. I’m actually all hat and not much cattle. For a sophisticated point of view on these things, you might try some introductions to topos theory.

]]> By: Neil B. http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/01/12/hot-if-and-only-if-fly/#comment-308296 Neil B. Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:56:11 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/01/12/hot-if-and-only-if-fly/#comment-308296 Huh?, I am interested in non-classical logic/s, if you know any good links/experts/books etc. pls. LMK, tx Huh?, I am interested in non-classical logic/s, if you know any good links/experts/books etc. pls. LMK, tx

]]> By: Huh? http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/01/12/hot-if-and-only-if-fly/#comment-308276 Huh? Mon, 14 Jan 2008 04:14:20 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/01/12/hot-if-and-only-if-fly/#comment-308276 The only argument I know of that shows that the statements "A implies B" and "not A implies not B" together imply "A is equivalent to B" uses the Law of the Excluded Middle. Perhaps Mr. MIMS is working in a non-classical logic, in which case Mr. Harvilla's analysis is off the mark. The only argument I know of that shows that the statements “A implies B” and “not A implies not B” together imply “A is equivalent to B” uses the Law of the Excluded Middle. Perhaps Mr. MIMS is working in a non-classical logic, in which case Mr. Harvilla’s analysis is off the mark.

]]> By: Neil B. http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/01/12/hot-if-and-only-if-fly/#comment-308268 Neil B. Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:38:59 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/01/12/hot-if-and-only-if-fly/#comment-308268 Hey, just a reminder dig at logical positivism: It's founding statements (best put as "Every statement is either synthetic or analytical" and "Statements that aren't experimentally/operationally verifiable [if not analytically verifiable from those that are, and which allows mathematics and not just physical references] are meaningless" effectively violate their own premises. (Reflect on it, I can tell you why if asked.) Being a circular statement is better than being self-contradictory, and how could such "bright people" not see the irony in their formulations? I love to throw this up at the militant skeptiwanks agitating at oft strident outfits like Pharyngula. Hey, just a reminder dig at logical positivism: It’s founding statements (best put as “Every statement is either synthetic or analytical” and “Statements that aren’t experimentally/operationally verifiable [if not analytically verifiable from those that are, and which allows mathematics and not just physical references] are meaningless” effectively violate their own premises. (Reflect on it, I can tell you why if asked.) Being a circular statement is better than being self-contradictory, and how could such “bright people” not see the irony in their formulations? I love to throw this up at the militant skeptiwanks agitating at oft strident outfits like Pharyngula.

]]> By: fh http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/01/12/hot-if-and-only-if-fly/#comment-308264 fh Sun, 13 Jan 2008 19:31:21 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/01/12/hot-if-and-only-if-fly/#comment-308264 So Huckabee is on the offensive trying to destroy something worth defending and is getting to close for comfort? sounds about right. So Huckabee is on the offensive trying to destroy something worth defending and is getting to close for comfort?

sounds about right.

]]> By: Odani of the Streets http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/01/12/hot-if-and-only-if-fly/#comment-308262 Odani of the Streets Sun, 13 Jan 2008 19:23:33 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/01/12/hot-if-and-only-if-fly/#comment-308262 That song is so last year. Is Mims even like, still alive? That song is so last year. Is Mims even like, still alive?

]]> By: Scott Aaronson http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/01/12/hot-if-and-only-if-fly/#comment-308261 Scott Aaronson Sun, 13 Jan 2008 19:20:52 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/01/12/hot-if-and-only-if-fly/#comment-308261 Sean, I heard that song playing once (even <i>I</i> get out occasionally...), and was also puzzled about the structure of the rapper's argument. After a bit of reflection, though, the resolution hit me: by offering such a manifestly circular hotness argument, the rapper is, in effect, claiming that his hotness is so self-evident that it does not require external justification. Sean, I heard that song playing once (even I get out occasionally…), and was also puzzled about the structure of the rapper’s argument. After a bit of reflection, though, the resolution hit me: by offering such a manifestly circular hotness argument, the rapper is, in effect, claiming that his hotness is so self-evident that it does not require external justification.

]]> By: jim http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/01/12/hot-if-and-only-if-fly/#comment-308260 jim Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:09:23 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/01/12/hot-if-and-only-if-fly/#comment-308260 Being fly implies feasting on a pile of shit. The shit is generally hot and, more often than not, steamy. So being fly implies being full of hot steamy shit, which, of course, makes one hot, but not, as is frequently assumed, <em>hotter</em> than shit (Second Law). So I see nothing wrong with the song's logic. The singer is, however, making a less than seminal claim: he is full of shit, albeit hot shit. But poetic license argues in favor of cutting him some slack. After all, it is inadvisable for him to fly off the handle, as it were. QED Being fly implies feasting on a pile of shit. The shit is generally hot and, more often than not, steamy. So being fly implies being full of hot steamy shit, which, of course, makes one hot, but not, as is frequently assumed, hotter than shit (Second Law). So I see nothing wrong with the song’s logic.

The singer is, however, making a less than seminal claim: he is full of shit, albeit hot shit. But poetic license argues in favor of cutting him some slack. After all, it is inadvisable for him to fly off the handle, as it were.

QED

]]> By: janko http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/01/12/hot-if-and-only-if-fly/#comment-308256 janko Sun, 13 Jan 2008 16:43:04 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/01/12/hot-if-and-only-if-fly/#comment-308256 He says he's hot because he's fly, so being fly is a necessary condition for hotness, but he doesn't say it's a sufficient condition. There could be other conditions which, together with flyness are sufficient for being hot. That way, not being fly implies not being hot, but being fly doesn't imply being hot, if the other conditions aren't met. He doens't mention the other conditions, but they could be there... That way too, fly and hot aren't synonimous. (but, indeed there aren't any cases of hotness without the flyness) He says he’s hot because he’s fly, so being fly is a necessary condition for hotness, but he doesn’t say it’s a sufficient condition. There could be other conditions which, together with flyness are sufficient for being hot.
That way, not being fly implies not being hot, but being fly doesn’t imply being hot, if the other conditions aren’t met. He doens’t mention the other conditions, but they could be there…

That way too, fly and hot aren’t synonimous. (but, indeed there aren’t any cases of hotness without the flyness)

]]> By: Carl Brannen http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/01/12/hot-if-and-only-if-fly/#comment-308240 Carl Brannen Sun, 13 Jan 2008 07:46:30 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/01/12/hot-if-and-only-if-fly/#comment-308240 This was far too amusing a waste of time. And Huckabee could catch flack from being over a target that is not "the" target, so the logical inference does not obtain even in the rigors of wartime where only targets are defended. This was far too amusing a waste of time. And Huckabee could catch flack from being over a target that is not “the” target, so the logical inference does not obtain even in the rigors of wartime where only targets are defended.

]]> By: Ellipsis http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/01/12/hot-if-and-only-if-fly/#comment-308234 Ellipsis Sun, 13 Jan 2008 04:17:56 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/01/12/hot-if-and-only-if-fly/#comment-308234 This is why Sean's not This is why Sean's not It's because he's white Color he ain't got He is just a nerd Physics is his thing Although he likes to dream Hip hop he can't sing This is why Sean’s not
This is why Sean’s not
It’s because he’s white
Color he ain’t got

He is just a nerd
Physics is his thing
Although he likes to dream
Hip hop he can’t sing

]]> By: Neil B. http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/01/12/hot-if-and-only-if-fly/#comment-308230 Neil B. Sun, 13 Jan 2008 03:44:29 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/01/12/hot-if-and-only-if-fly/#comment-308230 OK, here's what Huckabee said, and it really isn't illogical in context: <i> Mr. Huckabee, for his part, responded with trademark humor. “The Air Force has a saying that says if you’re not catching flak, you’re not over the target,” he said. “I’m catching the flak; I must be over the target.” </i> Sure, in general it could be there's a world where flak can come from far away, so you wouldn't have to be over the target to get it, but being over the target would always bring you flak too - thereby deriving the USAF saying. But I think it isn't right to judge statements on pure logic, because realistically they are based on experience and not just pure symbolic logic. So Huckabee is implying, in our <b>experience</b> flak can't come from far away, hence it is OK to work that data into the inference. I'll pass on the fly and hot and not business since the semantics is too subtle, and the above experiential assist is not so helpful (to someone like me, at least.) OK, here’s what Huckabee said, and it really isn’t illogical in context:


Mr. Huckabee, for his part, responded with trademark humor. “The Air Force has a saying that says if you’re not catching flak, you’re not over the target,” he said. “I’m catching the flak; I must be over the target.”

Sure, in general it could be there’s a world where flak can come from far away, so you wouldn’t have to be over the target to get it, but being over the target would always bring you flak too - thereby deriving the USAF saying. But I think it isn’t right to judge statements on pure logic, because realistically they are based on experience and not just pure symbolic logic. So Huckabee is implying, in our experience flak can’t come from far away, hence it is OK to work that data into the inference. I’ll pass on the fly and hot and not business since the semantics is too subtle, and the above experiential assist is not so helpful (to someone like me, at least.)

]]> By: spyder http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/01/12/hot-if-and-only-if-fly/#comment-308228 spyder Sun, 13 Jan 2008 03:18:20 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/01/12/hot-if-and-only-if-fly/#comment-308228 Whatever happened to cool??? Whatever happened to cool???

]]> By: Sean http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/01/12/hot-if-and-only-if-fly/#comment-308227 Sean Sun, 13 Jan 2008 03:12:53 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/01/12/hot-if-and-only-if-fly/#comment-308227 If being not fly <em>implies</em> that you ain't hot ("You ain't 'cause you not"), I think that excludes the possibility of independently existing causes of hotness. Although it could be that being fly is a symptom of hotness, and there is a third cause that always leads to both. If being not fly implies that you ain’t hot (”You ain’t ’cause you not”), I think that excludes the possibility of independently existing causes of hotness. Although it could be that being fly is a symptom of hotness, and there is a third cause that always leads to both.

]]> By: Mark S. http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/01/12/hot-if-and-only-if-fly/#comment-308222 Mark S. Sun, 13 Jan 2008 01:52:41 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/01/12/hot-if-and-only-if-fly/#comment-308222 Not sure I agree. It could be that being "fly" could be the cause of "hot"ness, in some but not all cases. In that case, one could say "I'm hot 'cause I'm fly" and "You aren't 'cause you're not", but "fly" and "hot" would not be synonymous. Not sure I agree. It could be that being “fly” could be the cause of “hot”ness, in some but not all cases. In that case, one could say “I’m hot ’cause I’m fly” and “You aren’t ’cause you’re not”, but “fly” and “hot” would not be synonymous.

]]>