Disjunctive Puns

When I learned Spanish orthography in school, these were still the rules, and so I always used to write these words with an accent mark. I sometimes still do out of habit, but other times I make the conscious decision not to, to get with the times; but then I become self-conscious about coming across as uneducated among the people who aren't aware of the change.

If you still write these words with the accent mark, why?

If you don't, why not?

Determine if ~(P implies ~Q) is in disjunctive or conjunctive normal form.

How can I find this? This doesn't contain any disjunction or conjunctions so is it not either?

Hi. I learned recently that in the Hebrew Bible the accents atnach and siluq, which divide a great number of verses into two parts, put the word at the end of the stich, or verse half (for those unfamiliar), into "pause" in such a way that they affect the pronunciation of the word. They do this by demanding a long vowel under the word in pause, lengthening the vowel when necessary.

I find this really fascinating because it suggests the presence of the disjunctive syntax in oral Hebrew also. That is, unless this was perhaps merely a Masoretic addition.

I know that parallelism is primarily a mode of poetry, where it is almost constant. However, the disjunctions in so many prose verses seems related, especially as verses with these disjunctive accents are normally divided into two. Could it be that such divisions of ideas into two so permeated the Hebrew language that they were marked in syntax in spoken Hebrew also?

Hi, I've solved a task, which I'm not sure if it's correct or not, as I'm doing it for the first time, thus I'd like to ask someone, if I got it correct.

Task: convert the following formula to the conjuctive, disjunctive and full disjunctive form:

(ϕ ⇒ ψ) ⇒ (¬ϕ ⇒ ¬ψ)

I went through Wiki and some materials on the internet and I've written the method how to solve it:

• get rid of implication - p -> q = ¬ p ∨ q
• use de Morgan's laws to get rid of negations

Solution: I've done the following:

(ϕ ⇒ ψ) ⇒ (¬ϕ ⇒ ¬ψ)

¬ (¬ϕ ∨ ψ) ∨ (¬¬ϕ ∨ ¬ψ)

(ϕ ∧ ¬ ψ) ∨ (ϕ ∨ ¬ψ) // this is disjunctive form

(ϕ ∧ ¬ ψ) ∨ ¬ (ϕ ∨ ¬ψ) // here I'm not sure if I can negate only one side, in order to change OR to AND?

(ϕ ∧ ¬ ψ) ∨ (¬ϕ ∧ ψ) // this is full disjunctive form

(ϕ ∨ ¬ ψ) ∧ (¬ϕ ∨ ψ) // this is (full) conjuctive form

Is this correct? Thank you in advance!

MODERATOR NOTICE: THIS THREAD CONTAINS UNVETTED DISCUSSION ON THE SUBJECT OF PRACTICE. ANY AND ALL ADVICE MAY BE UNTRUE, PARTIALLY TRUE, OR ADVERSARIALLY PRESENTED TRUTH. FOLLOW IT AT YOUR OWN PERIL. THIS IS AN AUTOMATED MESSAGE, IF YOU BELIEVE IT WAS ADDED IN ERROR PLEASE CONTACT MODERATION STAFF VIA PMS OR MODERATION SPIRITS VIA THE STANDARD DIAGRAM.

Connection is at the core, not just of practice, but of existence. While relationships hold us in this world; and keep us from slipping into the places where lost, forgotten, or dejected things pile up; reducing connections to merely the fabric of a metaphorical tarp holding us up is leaving out the bulk of their purpose. Connections impact what we have, know, feel, think, and do on a moment to moment basis. Some, who I would consider quite well founded had I not had experiences with beings who could not form or hold connections, even believe that connections define those traits.

Given that, it is surprising that there isn't more thought committed to the practice of connections on a more systemic nature. Sure, the sympath and the enchantress may care about connections as it relates to sticking their trade, the augur may fear connection as a plucked string or a reflected glance with each Seeing, and Hosts wage an argument of coup and claim over their connection to the raw grist of a mortal shell. The practice of affirming and nailing down connections are commonly invoked and studied in heroic magics and Faerie magic of the winter court respectively. But where again are those practices for diluting connections, or wearing them away entirely?

Knowledge and information are tied along connective lines. A person well versed in medicine might, to a certain sort of Sight, have connections to their university, medical school, or the hospital where they did their residency. One might see connections to the various texts and teachers that taught them chemistry, anatomy, nephrology, and the like. If, by practice, you snipped or strained a connection in the right way, the knowledge gained might metaphorically slide down that damaged connection, being rendered inaccessible either temporarily or permanently. It is my theory that many of these beings and the practitioners who study them have sanded away the connections that would inform the public at large, or at least the Awoken public, of their subject matter.

The means and methods for doing this are varied, but it is important that I speak in hypotheticals

I came across this SackOverflow answer recently.

I'm just wondering if the absence of disjunctive patterns in Haskell was a conscious, opinionated design choice or something else. Those are very prevalent in languages like Rust and Kotlin, which both provide similar constructs to Haskell's ADTs (Rust enums and Kotlin sealed classes).

This is my first serious attempt to create a python package with tests, CI and a readable overview. It is a minimal implementation of the Disjunctive Normal Network classifier which divides the feature space in a similar way to a Decision Tree, but instead of axis-aligned rectangles it uses convex polytopes (hyperdimensional polygons).

Here's the code on Github

Any feedback is appreciated

We all know that ou is generally used as a disjunctive particle, i.e to delineate either/or cases. However, I remember hearing in a youtube video that it is often used conjunctively, e.g. "mon passeport ou ma licence sont dans ma poche" in which case, the speaker means to say that both his license and his passport are in his pocket rather than one or the other. Can somebody clarify this?

Hi Everyone,

Im kinda new at the game, a bit more than a month and im maining a Shadower that i enjoy playing with; after seeing a few guides i start lvling some alts to make the grinding so i got a Buccaneer lvl 80 by now and i find an enjoyable playstyle too, so here comes my doubt about how can i compare them both in terms of solo and area dmg, survability, energy mech and everything i should know to consider a change at this moment that my shadower is not geared enough. Hope Buccs experts could give me some advice and make up my mind.

https://preview.redd.it/c3mxtqkuogk31.png?width=959&format=png&auto=webp&s=63678cc11b6f4819be8fc136d39f775dee2c2df3

To not make another post ill make some concerns that would help my progress:

Is it better to keep expedition gear or i have to lvl up head and belt as other pieces ?

do i should get gear based at "gear bonuses"(all muspell or all eclectic) or what should i aim ?

Is it worth to buy monster masher rex red earings ? because u can enhance it up so more SF ? whats the point or difference at buying the red or the blue ones, only visual?

When i want to lvl up some item, i know i need to send it via storage to my alts to use their powders but what if i use the powders on epics my alts have and then use them to lvl up the item i want, which option is better?

My koala event pets are about to expire and i will need an autobuff one because of that stupid 5 min buff shadowers have :( so i want to know if there is an option to get a pet like that as a F2P ?

The potential rank of an item is only get by luck? is there a way to upgrade it?

Srry about the extension but i think thats all i need to know by now.

PD: Srry again about my english.

Thanks in advance to all.

I'm finally listening to the audiobook of this satirical masterpiece. In Chapter 3 there are three separate yet simultaneous storylines, with the narrator bouncing between them, switching focus with each sentence, and even within sentences. This rapid-fire alternation might be what Benny Shapenny was after in his awful book. After all, BNW is held up as an example of the "socialist dystopia", so it's safe to assume that Shaps had read it at some point.

Possible? Plausible?

i.e when did "Who did this? Me.", "It's me" etc. become more common than "Who did this? I." "It is I" etc.

Alright, I am working with disjunctive normal forms and conjunctive normal forms.

Pictures: https://imgur.com/a/qhdyNrh

I have included 3 pictures of how someone else simplified 3 different DNFs.

I wanted to ask how you are supposed to do this. Looking at D4, I would say you look at minterms 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 seperately - then you take over only variables in the minterms that are equal (so -x1, x2, x3 for minterms 1 and 2 in D4). But I then looked at examples D2 and D3 and was unable to apply this the way it was done in D4.

I know how to get to the initial expressions for D1 - 4 and how to make a circuit based on the simplified expressions. All I need to know now is how to simplify them.

Can anyone maybe explain D2 or D3 step by step and tell me how to do this?

Thanks in advance.

Alternatively, if someone has found a really good tutorial, I'd love that too.

When I started learning French, I came across phrases like "c'est moi" (It's me), "ça va, et toi ?" (I'm fine, and you?), and couldn't help but notice the parallel to English. I would say "It's me" and never "It's I"; it feels completely stilted. But, I sometimes see people say that constructions like "Me and my family (go camping)" are completely wrong, and suggest something like "My family and I (go camping)" instead.

My questions are this: Where do English disjunctive pronouns come from? French? When did they show up? And why are learners and the grammatically-inclined not taught about them?

I have two tattoos now, and I'm thinking about getting a third, different-styled tattoo. My artist mentioned that combining too many themes may eventually look like random almost-clipart thrown together.

I know many people have sleeve themes/styles but I was wondering if having many different styles on me would look busy/messy, or if I'm over-thinking things.

Minimal implementation of the Disjunctive Normal Network classifier which divides the feature space in a similar way to a Decision Tree, but instead of axis-aligned rectangles it uses convex polytopes (hyperdimensional polygons).

Also, this is a first serious attempt to create a python package with tests, CI and a readable overview.

Here's the project on Github