[Archive c 17.03.2008] Humour [Archive to 28.04.2012] - page 345
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Quite right, but logic is also about obtaining maximum knowledge from minimum background information.
The preface said so: don't invent anything new, take it as it is. Here it is enough to apply formal logic (the rule of formation of the inverse theorem: if A => B, then not-B => not-A).
Oddly enough, it is not easy to pass a test without formal logic.
Thanks to this unique exercise, without knowing any programming language at all, you can feel like a real programmer-professional!
For this exercise you will need:
- two participants;
- A clock (preferably with a stopwatch);
- A piece of blank paper;
- A pen (ballpoint or helium, but a pen is important).
One of the participants will be the "Client" (the Employer) and the other will be the "Contractor" (the Programmer).
"The 'Client' is given a watch and a vote, the 'Contractor' is given paper and a pen.
Start of the exercise:
"Customer" takes 10 minutes and gives the task to "Contractor":
"Draw me a pretty girl, please."
Then, while the "doer" draws, standing "above him", express the following wishes for the drawing:
0:30 - Let her have a sword in her hand.
1:00 - A two-handed sword that she holds with both hands!
1:30 - And in her other hand give her an ultrasound.
2:00 - Let her be a tired traveller, sitting down to rest.
2:30 - On the sword she leans, resting, then.
3:00 - May she be wearing a cloak developing in the wind!
3:30 - ...And a swimming costume.
4:00 - And a suit of armour!
4:30 - Not... a uniform!
5:00 - Get rid of the cape, it doesn't go with the uniform.
5:30 - Let her stand boldly on the bridge of the space cruiser!
6:00 - Why does she have a sword? Get rid of that old thing. And turn the ultrasound into a blaster!
7:30 - Her hair is blowing in the wind... for beauty's sake.
7:00 - The blaster doesn't look right... put it away.
She's even the captain of this ship, she doesn't need a blaster!
7:30 - She needs a captain's cap! And her hair neatly pulled back over her head!
8:00 - And she needs to sit in the captain's chair!
8:30 - The beautiful, stern and extraordinarily brave captain of a pirate ship...
9:00-- No, a squadron of the Galactic Federation battle fleet!
9:30 -...Extending her finger, giving the order to change course...
After 10 minutes, the "Customer" takes the "Contractor's" work, examines it critically and gives his impression:
"That's not at all what I wanted! Where's her trusty adviser? Why doesn't she have a service weapon? And in general, why is she so unattractive and harsh? I asked for a pretty girl! And there are so many scribbles in the drawing... You're a bad programmer, I shouldn't have come to you... I will not pay for such a hack!"
The preface said so: don't invent anything new, take it as it is. Here it is enough to apply formal logic (the rule of formation of the inverse theorem: if A => B, then not-B => not-A).
Oddly enough, without formal logic, the test is rather difficult to pass.
That's the way it is, I'm not arguing. It's just where is that line in reasoning. By convention we assume that it can blow bubbles for some reason. The nature of the assumption/inference I gave is exactly the same.
Taki read it. The test is really good. Except that I didn't pass it - on the fly, I answered 79%.
>
These are French cartoons, very good, there are several dozen of them, download or better buy the dvd, you won't regret it
xxxx: should actions that are done through force be considered unnatural and therefore undesirable?
oooh: write your coursework and don't whine
I think you yourself wrote that "logic is still getting the maximum knowledge from the minimum background information". That is the line.
There is no additional information. So, apply formal logic and don't sweat it.
I think you yourself wrote that "logic is still about getting the most knowledge from the least background information". That's the line.
There is no additional information. So, apply formal logic and don't sweat it.
I forgot to add - credible. And this credibility and unambiguity is not always credible and unambiguous. :о) You check formal logic by reasoning, and you end up limiting every inference to applicability.
PS: I'm not.