HR represents the interests of the company, not your interests. Idk why you would even go there. They’re there to protect the company.

Some drugs

Well I could have told you that

eh sometimes you just gotta say fuck it and call it a bad job imo

The Frida Kahlo one is dope, the complete one

No it’s false. There is no such thing as something that is neither true nor false.

RL or not RL

Is that a true or false question? Are you asking if it is true or false the value exists? What is n, a number? If so, no the value does not exist. The answer is false. You can’t divide by zero. Next question.

Then I would not have a dog. The statement would be false.

Thats the deep web. Dark web is different.

cheers, it’s been a fun debate

/u/iiioiia has not convinced me but respect to him nonetheless

Nothing, assuming I understand you and “is” = true and “not is” = false.

That is a dog.

That is not a dog.

Only one of those statements can be correct about any one thing at a particular time.

Something cannot be both a dog and not a dog at the same time.

Your ideas about 3 et seq. are likely mere definitions that will allow us to determine the answer to whether I have a dog.

That is, of 1 and 2, one must be true and one must be false. That is, I cannot have a dog and not have a dog at the same time. It’s an impossibility.

If 3 is a cat, then 2 is true. If 3 is anything other than a dog, then 2 is true, but if 3 is a dog then 1 is true.

You see what I’m saying?

And as to whether the universe is true or not, I don’t know the answer, but I know it’s either true or false, and it is cannot be both true and false.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

Here is the Wikipedia on this issue. Like you, others have challenged the law, but I don’t buy it for a second. I think Aristotle hit the nail on the head.

Lol, again, it does not matter what is the definition of RL. It doesn’t even matter if RL changes.

A is always RL or not RL

B is always RL or not RL

To prove me wrong you need to show me a scenario where

A = not RL and RL

B = not RL and RL

It’s an impossibility. You cannot be not Race Leader and be Race Leader at the same time. You cannot be and not be at the same time. Ternary logic might exist but it’s wrong to the extent it might suggest that things need not always be true or false.

RL = both A and B if RL ≠ SL

All you’ve done is change the definition of RL.

RL is no longer “singular leader.”

It now allows for ties.

RL = SL or tied racers

Therefore, RL = both A and B

A is still RL or not RL

B is still RL or not RL

It’s just solved differently with your new definition of RL. Now the answer is just true instead of false, which of course is allowed by “RL or not RL.”

Nah, this doesn’t create a third option. It’s actually a good example of my point.

The particle is here or it is not.

We don’t know where the particle is located, but it is here or not here.

P = Particle

X = Location

P = X or Not X

I am not sure what you mean by that.

The definition of RL? If that’s what you mean, it doesn’t matter. Define it however you want.

It could change the result but it will never change:

A = RL or not RL

B = RL or not RL

Give me another definition. I’ll solve it.

Keep reading. I solve for that scenario.

Both are then false, i.e., not RL.

A ≠ RL

B ≠ RL

RL = not A or B

So, no, even in your example we know the answer must be true or false.

I will use RL for Race Leader.

From context, we know you’re defining RL as

> singular leader.

A will be Person 1.

B will be Person 2.

> If A = singular leader, then A = RL

> If B = singular leader, then B = RL

> If A ≠ singular leader, then A ≠ RL

> If B ≠ singular leader, then B ≠ RL

A is either the singular leader or he is not, right?

Same goes for B.

(We know neither are singular leader because they are tied, but put that aside for now. Let’s pretend we don’t know they’re tied.)

I’ll use SL for singular leader now.

In other words:

> A = SL or not SL

> B = SL or not SL

And we know our definition of RL that RL is SL.

> RL = SL

If

> RL = SL

> A = SL or not SL

> B = SL or not SL

Then

> A = RL or not RL

> B = RL or not RL

We have now proven that it is either true or false that A is RL and that it is either true or false that B is RL.

And for fun, we can go ahead solve the problem here, since you told us they are tied and that tied ≠ SL.

A ≠ SL

B ≠ SL

RL = SL

A ≠ RL

B ≠ RL

Therefore,

A = RL is False

A ≠ RL is True

B = RL is False

B ≠ RL is True

RL = not A or B

(aka RL = not A and not B)

Right, then we would know whether it is true or false—not that it must be among those two options, that it is true or it is false. We already know the latter. Only which of the two options is unknown.

It literally says:

> Unknown means “true or false, depending on the null values”.

Yeah, I’m not a programmer, but if I am following correctly, then null = true or false. That is, it still has to be true or false, and it cannot be true and false or not true and not false.

Meaning, I’m right. We might not know the answer, but it has to be true or false. It can’t be both or neither.

> Unknown means “true or false, depending on the null values”.

Lol, no. We do know that. I either have a dog or I do not have a dog. What other answer could there possibly be?

Think about it:

(1) I have a dog;

(2) I do not have a dog; or

(3) ???.

What possibly could be your third option?

Yeah, but I am not even sure what you mean by that lol.