The jokes based on formal logic trend as of late go something like “The fact that there is a tuna fish implies the existence of a threena fish”. And most of them are simply horribly tragic.
The fact that there are jokes based on formal logic that are simply horribly tragic implies the existence of jokes based on againstmal illogic that are complexly delightfully pleasant.
Am I doing this right?
I analysed the panel using lasso regression to fit a subset of setups to expected punchlines, using both short and long lambdas, and this post came up short.
Seems that it worked pretty well regardless if that’s what you did :)
Isn’t that implication arrow backwards?
“P follows from Q” is P ⇐ Q
Maybe that’s the joke, though.
EDIT: The text says “P follows Q”, which my brain apparently corrected to “P follows from Q”. These are not the same, and I’d argue that “P follows Q” is problematic as a phrase as a result. Grumble grumble.
It says Q follows fron P tho
So I reread it and it says “P follows Q”, which I (mis)read/(mis?)interpreted as “P follows from Q”.
I don’t remember if “follows” was ever used for forward implication in this way when I actually did a logic course, but it was a few decades ago now. Maybe it was.
There’s also that the usual joke in this category is that in basic logic, false implies true, which seems to be the punchline of the joke in the comic, just with the arrow backwards.
You’re missing the first word, it says “from P, follows Q”. I initially just quoted it as the easier way to read.
SMBC vibes
