Contrapositive 34

[pozorvlak]

You've probably already heard of Rule 34 of the Internet:If it exists, there is porn of it on the Internet. No exceptions.
Now, as any mathematician can tell you, the statement "if X then Y" is equivalent to its contrapositive, "if not-Y then not-X". For instance, "if Socrates is human, then he is mortal" is equivalent to "if Socrates is not mortal

Comments

Two points

[andrewducker]

1) I am very happy that they actually registered wetriffs.com
2) Rule 34 is usually phrased so that "exists" means something different to the way you're using it. Spongebob cartoons exist, so there is spongebob porn, for instance.

But I like the way you twist logic, so it's all good :->

Re: Two points

[pozorvlak]

SPONGEBOB ISN'T REAL?!?! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[htfb]

That's an easy one. You've got your contrapositives and your converses confused.

If all ravens are black, then anything which is not black can't be a raven. And if anything that isn't black can't be a raven, all ravens must be black.
The contrapositive (i.e., literally, the "opposite-way-of-putting-it") is "all-not-blacks are not-ravens", which is true.

As blackbirds (and, oh, black cats) show, the converse is false.

"If it does not exist, there is not porn of it on the Internet" is the converse of Contrapositive 34---and means roughly the same as the converse of Rule 34; it's obviously wrong.

[pozorvlak]

Precisely. From my post:the statement "if X then Y" is equivalent to its contrapositive, "if not-Y then not-X".
It may help at this point to draw a truth-table.

[htfb]

I am slightly concerned that you may be assuming a law of excluded middle. If you've excluded the middles, it's probably not pornography.

Also I am unhappy about your probabilistic interpretation. For "high confidence" you need a probabilistic measure and for a measure you need your functor "is porn of [ ] on the internet" (or, on the restricted domain of the internet, "is porn of") to have certain topological properties[1]. But we know that internet porn can defy all topology as well as all logic.

[1] I am not sure about compactness, though I would like to see a fixed point of the "is internet porn of" operator. That's a fairly abstract "like", though---I'm not sure how truly arousing it could be. Maybe I have the wrong proclivities to be aroused by fixed points.

[pozorvlak]

I think a fixed point of the "is internet porn of" operator isn't too hard to construct: make a live video feed of someone (presumably an autophile) masturbating to that very feed. I'm sure it's been done, but it doesn't sound like my sort of thing.

did you see

[anonymous]

this: http://healthland.time.com/2011/05/19/mind-reading-the-researchers-who-analyzed-all-the-porn-on-the-internet/

I put it on hype a while back, not sure if you caught it..

Re: did you see

[pozorvlak]

Yes, I saw that. Interesting stuff!