Took me a while but I get it (not the "standard" bool operators I'm used to using in math).
Not treat implies trick.
Would this be the logics of the people giving the treats?:
Not(Not treat implies trick) implies treat
A whole bag of eggs???
That's just *gross*!!
Shouldn't "Treat" be carrying a bag?
Everybody is carrying stuff internally. Some are readily accessible...
they're not trick or treating they are trick andoror treating.
if not A -> B, then A and be can both be true.
True, but "Trick or Treat"ers better be using an exclusive or to avoid getting in trouble. In which case the third person would be marked "<->".
If it's a bad treat, then I presume it's inclusive or
I love your logic. So if they DO get a treat, they still have the option to pull a trick :D
well remember its trick OR treat so so it has to be either or both
Or you could prove it this way:
For any epsilon (where epsilon is a real number), n < epsilon. If epsilon is 10^-10, for instance, that is greater than 1-.99999999999, which is greater than 1-.999... (I realize that doesn't look very rigorous, but I think the principal is sound.)
So 1-.999... is smaller than any positive number. If you'll allow me to assume 1-.999... is non-negative, then the only remaining possibility is 1-.999... =0 and .999...=1.
oops, wrong comment page.
No problem, I can remove it :-)
This gave me a disjunctive silly-gasm.