im not actually sure what you mean there but im pretty sure the answer to my post is no, because its not actually a maths based concept im thinking up, i think im just trying to turn a logic process into maths and it doesnt work. or something. i could probably write a damn logic gate diagram for it, but equations... cant solve em, how the fuck am i gonna write em!
Based on the given equations, "a + b = not c," "b + c = not a," and "c + a = not b," all three variables "a," "b," and "c" must have a value of "false" (represented as 0 in binary logic).
i think its more of a logic thing. i was trying to figure out if what i wrote could be written in a one line equation. the binary logic youre right on, i could write a logic diagram on that, but not many people understand logic circuits so pointless.
[ - ] FreeinTX 1 point 3 monthsJan 30, 2025 07:12:21 ago (+1/-0)
two points of a triangle = true
This doesn't make sense.
the third = false
Nor this.
Points on a triangle aren't true or false.
and there is only a limited number of instances where a+b will = c if a,b, and c are whole numbers and even fewer instances if a,b and c are positive whole numbers.
Same with b+c being = to a and c+a being equal to b.
Most of the time they will all not not equal as you suggested.
a discussion i was having about some social stuff with a mate boils down to this, and without going into detail with what the things actually are, there are three things. you can have two, but you cant have the other one.
forget the triangle. ill rename it 'three data points' or 'three options' whatever doesnt matter it absolutely does make sense. its just represented as a triangle on my diagram because of whats going on, so its a 'use your imagination to contextualise thing' - but its shit that dont matter anyway.
maybe its more of a logic thing and it cant be put into a maths type a2+b2=c2 type equation in that way. either way, its not the shape thats the point, its the interacting data points.
the whole thing was like this 'oh yeah' moment and id done this fucken triangle with stuff and i was gonna put 'therefore - (equation)' im just dumb as fuck solving equations let alone creating them in the first place. but now this shits hours old and irrelevant and well into 'who the fuck cares' territory.
fuck, for once im not calling pagans speds or everyone else niggers and trying to have a mildly intelligent conversation, MAYBE I WONT FUCKEN BOTHER AGAIN!
Not much sense - I think you are trying to ask how to write (combine?) three logical notions. While programming notation may be better there, I'm thinking best just keep to English; I think you're trying to say:
1. If A and B are both true, C must be false
2. If B and C are both true, A must be false
3. If C and A are both true, B must be false
Note how those statements are only the one-way version. If that is all, they are equivalent to "not (A and B and C)", i.e. A, B and C are never all true together. If you don't like the brackets, it expands to become "not A or not B or not C".
That limits them to 2 being true at most, but also admits possibly 1 or none being true. If you meant those statements to be two-way, in effect generating three more logical claims, it limits them further such that exactly 2 must be true at all times.
I can't imagine a more concise logical statement for that than listing the three possibilities, i.e. "(A and B and not C) or (B and C and not A) or (C and A and not B)".
[ + ] drstrangergov
[ - ] drstrangergov 2 points 3 monthsJan 30, 2025 10:35:01 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] i_scream_trucks
[ - ] i_scream_trucks [op] 1 point 3 monthsJan 30, 2025 12:31:32 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Sleazy
[ - ] Sleazy 2 points 3 monthsJan 30, 2025 07:21:33 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] i_scream_trucks
[ - ] i_scream_trucks [op] 2 points 3 monthsJan 30, 2025 11:34:05 ago (+2/-0)*
i think its more of a logic thing. i was trying to figure out if what i wrote could be written in a one line equation. the binary logic youre right on, i could write a logic diagram on that, but not many people understand logic circuits so pointless.
probably not.
[ + ] i_scream_trucks
[ - ] i_scream_trucks [op] 1 point 3 monthsJan 30, 2025 06:20:06 ago (+1/-0)
trying to simplify something in a way thats slightly out of my league
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 1 point 3 monthsJan 30, 2025 07:12:21 ago (+1/-0)
Points on a triangle aren't true or false.
and there is only a limited number of instances where a+b will = c if a,b, and c are whole numbers and even fewer instances if a,b and c are positive whole numbers.
Same with b+c being = to a and c+a being equal to b.
Most of the time they will all not not equal as you suggested.
Maybe elaborate on what you're trying to do.
[ + ] localsal
[ - ] localsal 2 points 3 monthsJan 30, 2025 08:19:39 ago (+2/-0)
Set a + b = c and either
set b + c = a or set a + c = b
substitute one of the either equations into the first
(b + c) + b = c
and the only solution to this is if b = 0.
As a quick real test, just make one of the numbers have a decimal. Pick c = 1.5 and for any integer numbers of a and b, every "not" equation is true.
[ + ] i_scream_trucks
[ - ] i_scream_trucks [op] 1 point 3 monthsJan 30, 2025 11:47:50 ago (+1/-0)*
a discussion i was having about some social stuff with a mate boils down to this, and without going into detail with what the things actually are, there are three things. you can have two, but you cant have the other one.
forget the triangle. ill rename it 'three data points' or 'three options' whatever doesnt matter it absolutely does make sense. its just represented as a triangle on my diagram because of whats going on, so its a 'use your imagination to contextualise thing' - but its shit that dont matter anyway.
maybe its more of a logic thing and it cant be put into a maths type a2+b2=c2 type equation in that way. either way, its not the shape thats the point, its the interacting data points.
the whole thing was like this 'oh yeah' moment and id done this fucken triangle with stuff and i was gonna put 'therefore - (equation)' im just dumb as fuck solving equations let alone creating them in the first place. but now this shits hours old and irrelevant and well into 'who the fuck cares' territory.
fuck, for once im not calling pagans speds or everyone else niggers and trying to have a mildly intelligent conversation, MAYBE I WONT FUCKEN BOTHER AGAIN!
anyway, cheers.
[ + ] SithEmpire
[ - ] SithEmpire 0 points 3 monthsJan 31, 2025 04:31:27 ago (+0/-0)
1. If A and B are both true, C must be false
2. If B and C are both true, A must be false
3. If C and A are both true, B must be false
Note how those statements are only the one-way version. If that is all, they are equivalent to "not (A and B and C)", i.e. A, B and C are never all true together. If you don't like the brackets, it expands to become "not A or not B or not C".
That limits them to 2 being true at most, but also admits possibly 1 or none being true. If you meant those statements to be two-way, in effect generating three more logical claims, it limits them further such that exactly 2 must be true at all times.
I can't imagine a more concise logical statement for that than listing the three possibilities, i.e. "(A and B and not C) or (B and C and not A) or (C and A and not B)".