Something for candidates to think about... about

siavosh

Simple proof:
     No Study = Fail
+  Study = No Fail
     No Study + Study = No Fail + Fail
     (No + 1) Study = (No + 1) Fail
     (No + 1) Study = (No + 1) Fail
     Study = Fail

cv4cfa

Look, don’t hint and pretend you teared down anything. You either lay it out or you stay home. If I’m wrong I’ll own up to it.  Also, FYI != means unequal not NOT operator. But whatever.

joemoran

You’re really bad at this, for what it’s worth.
I’ll give you a hint so it doesn’t look like I can’t tear down your argument again: No Study != the NOT operator applied to “Study.”

rohitdoshi

Except that this is a proof by algebra, and there are no conditional statements. The other cool thing about my academic background is that it taught me to tear down arguments in one sentence instead of huge paragraphs.

pacmandefense

Good point. And you are right. Nevertheless, the proposed conclusion at the beginnig of this absurd topis is flawed. Let me put it this way, you cannot add two exclusive events and arrive at the proposed conclusion. No way. You are violating logic calculus rules, and, if for real, physics laws. All at the same time. To arrive at the proposed conclusion you have to assume that study and not study can occur at the same time, or are in fact the same thing. Which they cannot. So I restate, your probability identity is irrelevant here. And the conclusion reached is flawed and is not a tautology. A correct tautology would be (study implies pass) is identical to (notstudy implies fail). That’s it. You cannot reach the conclusion study implies  fail, because you are ignoring the antecedent study implies pass. Wich, if assumed to be true, cannot be violated or you would be, in fact, assuming that study and notstudy are one and the same or concomitant at the least. So, yes, P(AB)=0 is relevant. Now, if you are going to try to prove otherwise, with your 40 credit maths courses and what not, go ahead.
Now, I know nothing of your academic background. I’m sure you worked your butt through college and I can certainly respect that. Whether the maths credits you took were wasted or not is your own problem. They aren’t proof that you are right and I’m wrong in this case, only that you took what appear to be advanced courses in college. Check that out in your logics handbook too.

Penny-wenny

Black Swan wrote:
I was just joking, thought it was a humorous feaux proof.
I’m just teasing you.

genuinecfa

I had no idea this would be so controversial

Londonrocks

If you’re so good at logic, why do you think that adding events is the same thing as claiming two events occur simultaneously? Go back to “logic 101.” And my probability identity is not irrelevant. But what do I know? Those 40 math credits must have been wasted on me.

whew1110

BS. This example is not a tautology. Only a self referential statement. If I am, I am not= I am not. Unless I am. Logic 101. Or if p true, not p is false and (p and not p) is false (STILL cannot study and not study at he same time) P(study) + P( not study)= 1 is irrelevant. What’s relevant is P(study) * P( not study)= 0. Therefore, if study implies pass and not study fail,and both statements are true, not study cannot imply pass, because it means that study and not study are true at the same time.
3. You are most welcome.

needhelp1700

You absolutely can add exclusive events, and in fact, we use the fact that we can very often to solve problems. Tautology: You will either study or not study. Probability identity: P(study) + P(not study) = 1. And so on. Also, in response to your response to my third item: GFY