Martin's Blog

Bonsoir.

La dernière scène est intéressante du point de vue d'un professionnel logicien, car il contient un certain nombre d'erreurs logiques, soit invalide propositional constructions et formes syllogistique du type si souvent commise par mon épouse. «Tout le bois brûle«, déclare Sir Bedevere. «Donc«, conclut-il, «tout ce qui brûle est le bois.« Il s'agit, bien entendu, merde. Affirmatives universelle ne peut être partiellement converti: tout d'Alma Cogan est morte, mais seulement quelques-uns de la classe de gens sont morts est Alma Cogan. «Mais oui«, vous en conviendrez.

Toutefois, ma femme ne comprend pas cette limitation nécessaire de la conversion d'une proposition. Par conséquent, elle ne comprend pas moi. Comment une femme peut-elle s'attendre à apprécier un professeur de logique, si la simple syllogisme lui cause à se confondre.

Par exemple, étant donné le principe, «tous les poissons qui vivent sous» et «tous les maquereaux sont des poissons», ma femme va conclure non pas que «toutes les maquereaux vivent sous l'eau», mais que «si elle achète le poisson, il ne pleuvra pas», ou que «truites vivent dans les arbres», ou même que «Je ne l'aime plus». Ce qu'elle appelle l'aide de son intuition. Je l'appelle merde, et moi, il est très irrité, car il n'est pas logique.

«Il n'y aura pas de souper ce soir», at-elle parfois dire à mon retour à la maison. «Pourquoi pas» je vais demander. «Parce que j'ai été baiser le laitier tous le jour», at-elle dit, tout à fait inconscient d'erreur qu'elle a faites. «Mais», je vais péniblement remarquer, «étant donné que les activités de baiser le laitier et l'obtention de mon souper sont mutuellement exclusifs, maintenant que le baiser est terminée, sans doute alors, Dîner peut - logiquement - être faite». «Vous ne m'aimez pas, pas plus», elle va souvent postulat. «Si vous ne l'avez, vous me baiser parfois, de sorte que je ne voudrais pas avoir à compter sur le laitier de mes orgasmes». «Je vais vous donner un après avoir reçu mon souper», je crie maintenant généralement, «mais pas avant» - comme vous le comprenez, ce qui rend son baiser contingents à l'arrivée de mon souper.

«Dieu, tu me tourner lorsque vous êtes en colère, vous vieil homme», elle en déduit maintenant mystérieusement, la forçant doucement lancinante langue de ma gorge. «Qui se soucie de dîner», j'ai maintenant toujours de conclure, de lancer un peu la logique joyeusement aux quatre vents, et on tombe sur le sol, transporté par la passion des animaux, jusqu'à ce que nous puits de retour, épuisé, sur les cartons de yaourts.

J'ai bien peur semble avoir égaré quelque peu de l'original de ma mémoire. Mais en résumé:

Le sexe est plus agréable que de logique. On ne peut pas le prouver, mais il «est» dans le même sens que le mont Everest «est», ou que Alma Cogan «n'est pas».

Bonne nuit.

Good evening.

The last scene was interesting from the point of view of a professional logician because it contained a number of logical fallacies; that is, invalid propositional constructions and syllogistic forms, of the type so often committed by my wife. “All wood burns,” states Sir Bedevere. “Therefore,” he concludes, “all that burns is wood.” This is, of course, pure bulls@#t. Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted: all of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan. “Oh yes,” one would think.

However, my wife does not understand this necessary limitation of the conversion of a proposition; consequently, she does not understand me. For how can a woman expect to appreciate a professor of logic, if the simplest cloth-eared syllogism causes her to flounder.

For example, given the premise, “all fish live underwater” and “all mackerel are fish”, my wife will conclude, not that “all mackerel live underwater”, but that “if she buys kippers it will not rain”, or that “trout live in trees”, or even that “I do not love her any more.” This she calls “using her intuition”. I call it “crap”, and it gets me very *irritated* because it is not logical.

“There will be no supper tonight,” she will sometimes cry upon my return home. “Why not?” I will ask. “Because I have been screwing the milkman all day,” she will say, quite oblivious of the howling error she has made. “But,” I will wearily point out, “even given that the activities of screwing the milkman and getting supper are mutually exclusive, now that the screwing is over, surely then, supper may, logically, be got.” “You don't love me any more,” she will now often postulate. “If you did, you would give me one now and again, so that I would not have to rely on that rancid (milkman) for my orgasms.” “I will give you one after you have got me my supper,” I now usually scream, “but not before“—as you understand, making her bang contingent on the arrival of my supper.

“God, you turn me on when you're angry, you ancient brute!” she now mysteriously deduces, forcing her sweetly throbbing tongue down my throat. “f#@k supper!” I now invariably conclude, throwing logic somewhat joyously to the four winds, and so we thrash about on our milk-stained floor, transported by animal passion, until we sink back, exhausted, onto the cartons of yoghurt.

I'm afraid I seem to have strayed somewhat from my original brief. But in a nutshell:

Sex is more fun than logic—one cannot prove this, but it “is” in the same sense that Mount Everest “is”, or that Alma Cogan “isn't”.

Goodnight.

25th July 1596 : Nothing

17th September 1673 : Nothing

06th April 1757 : Nothing

24th August 1869 : The Waffle Iron

Teaching Maths in 1950
- A logger sells a truckload of timber for $100.
- His cost of production is 4/5 of the price.
- What is his profit?

Teaching Maths in 1960
- A logger sells a truckload of timber for $100.
- His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80.
- What is his profit?

Teaching Maths in 1970
- A logger exchanges a set “T” of timber for a set “M” of money.
- The cardinality of set “M” is 100.
- Each element is worth one dollar.
- Make 100 dots representing the elements of the set “M.”
- The set “C”, the cost of production contains 20 fewer points than set “M.”
- Represent the set “C” as a subset of set “M” and answer the following question:
- What is the cardinality of the set “P” of profits?

Teaching Maths in 1980
- A logger sells a truckload of timber for $100.
- His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20.
- Your assignment: Underline the number 20.

Teaching Maths in 1990
- By cutting down beautiful forest trees, the logger makes $20.
- What do you think of this way of making a living?
- Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the forest birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down the trees?
- There are no wrong answers.

Teaching Maths in 2002
- A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100.
- His cost of production is $120.
- How does Arthur Andersen determine that his profit margin is $60?

I work in litres per hour and millimetres per hectare, but I think in miles per gallon, even though I drive in kilometres, and I convert kilometres per hour to miles per hour in my head so they make sense.

Don't have a problem with milligrams or even kilos, but a tonne only makes sense because it's almost a ton, and I'm comfortable with a metre but mostly because it's around about a yard. (do I look at the “sanglier” on the next ridge and think to myself, “that's about a hundred and ten metre shot?” No, I do not. It's a hundred and ten YARD shot, and furthermore, the round I drop it with will be 130 GRAINS, not anything in bloody metric.)

In the winery most things - typically - are in French, litres and kilos and grams per litre, but then the wine went into barrels which were actually barriques and no-one knew how big they really were... 228 litres nominal, whatever that is in metric gallons.

Dealing with farmers is always interesting, they still measure rainfall in points, bless them (100 points to the inch), and they think pressure in PSI or Bar, whereas the computer works it out in metres or kPa, neither of which makes any real sense to Yours Truly.

Then there's head volume, as opposed to head pressure; one head equals 28.5 litres per second, but it also means an inch to the acre. I think it can mean 100mm to the hectare as well.

I still like my beer by the pint, even though it's actually only about 450ml, unless it's Friday and then I'll have a jug, which is ostensibly a litre, unless you're one of the regulars (I am) in which case you get given one of the Big Jugs, which are 40 oz.

I do do a wee bit in the kitchen, wherein I am more than at home with the pound and the cup, the handful, the teaspoon, the tablespoon, the pinch and the dollop.

I'm happy enough for electricity to come in kilowatts, but kilowatts have no place getting in the way of good honest horsepower. CC's are fine, I never really understood cubic inches.

I have no idea what a newton-metre is, but if I find one in the poolhouse I'm quite likely to wrap a torque wrench round its head... and I'm not about to swap my six inches for 150mm.

In Texas, the state legislature decreed that Pi would be equal to 8, to make geometry easier for children.