Show more
imdef boosted

Elsevier's profit margin last year was 37.8%. Let's contrast that with, say, Google (21.2%) or Apple (24.56%) or hell, Shell (10.95%).

I don't know how else to say these publishers-in-name-only are not on our side, they are not allies, they don't care about research or education

I should have been more precise. The two formal expressions

(2|x ^ 3|x) -> 6|x
(2|x -> 6|x) v (3|x -> 6|x)

are equivalent. However, it is less clear cut with their ordinary language translations:

"If x is divisible by 2 and x is divisible by 3, then x is divisible by 6."
"If x is divisible by 2, then x is divisible by 6, or if x is divisible by 3, then x is divisible by 6."

Show thread

Should have been more precise. The two formal expressions

(2|x ^ 3|x) -> 6|x
(2|x -> 6|x) v (3|x -> 6|x)

are equivalent. However, it is less clear cut with their ordinary language translations:

"If x is divisible by 2 and x is divisible by 3, then x is divisible by 6."
"If x is divisible by 2, then x is divisible by 6, or if x is divisible by 3, then x is divisible by 6."

Example 2: write a|x for "x is divisible by a" or "a divides x". Then
(2|x ^ 3|x) -> 6|x
(2|x -> 6|x) v (3|x -> 6|x)

In both cases, the first form is natural and obvious and the second is something you'd normally never write. But, if pressed, maybe you'd bite the bullet and agree it's an equivalent form. I'm still undecided but I enjoyed the paper.
(3/3)

Show thread

Because of the thoughts like the above, I found the following paper quite interesting:
tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108

Vidal points out that (P ^ Q) -> R is equivalent to (P -> R) v (Q -> R). Both these forms can be seen to be equivalent to ~P v ~Q v R. Specific instances of this equivalence can be awkward/counterintuitive:

Example 1:
("x is a rhombus" ^ "x is a rectangle") -> "x is a square"
("x is a rhombus" -> "x is a square") v ("x is a rectangle" -> "x is a square")

(3/n)

Show thread

I was never sure what to make of this, because I have yet to read a discussion of why material implication is a better model of mathematicians' "if P, then Q" than other alternatives. For example, why not understand "if P, then Q" in mathematics as "necessarily, if P, then Q" and take it to correspond to [](P -> Q), where [] is an operator of modal logic? I'm sure people already thought of this, I just haven't seen the pros and cons of this alternative (and other alternatives) compared to the pros and cons of the material implication. E.g., what about the implication in relevance logic? (2/n)

Show thread

Material implication P -> Q is equivalent to ~P v Q. It is generally agreed that the "if P, then Q" construction in ordinary language is not always the same as material implication. However, when you study mathematics, you're trained to think that, in mathematics, "if P, then Q" really is material implication. Here is an in many ways careful explanation: (1/n)
gowers.wordpress.com/2011/09/2

is being a very good sport playing "one of these things is not like the other" with pretty hopeless examples of four things. However, it is taking some amusing liberties with facts and logic. (1/2)

Explanation of the greenhouse effect by @skdh@nerdculture.de. Several plot twists so must watch to the end. youtube.com/watch?v=oqu5DjzOBF

imdef boosted

Lidia Morawska and 31 coauthors in a new article on the struggle to recognize or transmission of . Maybe a scientific research journal is not the best place for this message but the topic is important.
academic.oup.com/cid/advance-a

All tools I know (, Papers, , etc.) do a terrible job with accents/umlauts and need to be hand corrected and I suspect this one is no different. However, it usually takes a few clicks on a journal webpage to get a entry. This program is at least as convenient and lends itself to automation.

Show thread

This Python program for looking up a DOI and printing a entry looks useful:

scipython.com/blog/doi-to-bibt

Show more
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.