# Google+ Page // Facebook Page // Twitter Page

## 16 Comments

## Leave a comment

Comments temporarily disabled.

# Google+ Page // Facebook Page // Twitter Page

New to Spiked Math?

View the top comics.

View the top comics.

**New Feature:**Browse the archives in quick view! Choose from a black, white or grey background.**Top Math Comics**

(Ranked by SM-CRA)

Other Sites:

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...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_implication

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:

Consider n=1-0.999...

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 :-)

can !=

apparently

can!=would

This gave me a disjunctive silly-gasm.