Wednesday, July 15, 2009

One nice, one weird, one silly

Say you want to find the min or max of f(x,y) subject to a constraint that g(x,y)=0. Has it ever occurred to you that the values of x and y required are the same as the values of x and y required to find the min or max of g(x,y) subject to f(x,y)=0? I bet it hasn't. The requirement is entirely symmetrical (the "curly 'd'" notation is much prettier, but I can't be bothered to figure out how to do it here):

I can't get my intuition behind this: in boolean algebra,

(p or q) is equivalent to (p and not q or q). Yes, I know it's true, do the truth tables if you doubt me. It just seems wrong. P.S.:

(p and not q or not p and q) is not equivalent--that's exclusive or.

Let's for a moment write logical conjunction as product and disjunction as sum. Boolean algebras have the distributive rule p(q+r)=(pq+pr). Familiar, right? But boolean algebras also have this one: p+qr=(p+q)(p+r). Aside from the trivial p=0, when else is this true in arithmetic? The challenge is 7th grade level, but I like the answer.


  1. Your first thing reminded me of the Kuhn-Tucker conditions we had to learn in grad school (for economics problems).

  2. Andy Stedman11:14 PM

    When r+q-1 = -p ?

  3. Andy Stedman11:17 PM

    Oh duh.

  4. Andy,

    Thanx for my first real laugh of the day.

  5. Bob,

    Interesting! Much more complicated, of course.


The insidious ideology

"In contrast to its crueler competitor ideologies, liberalism is more insidious: as an ideology, it pretends to neutrality, claiming n...