GH missing logic function implication?

1 Like

I don’t know what that is, but isn’t that it:


I reviewed each of the available … There is no implication :neutral_face:

Have you a typical example ?
I understand that implication could be something like this

You can also use Stream Gate
Or if you want complete logic, Python, VB, C#

I think the Sift component does a sort of implication.

Something like Message, Answer and Effect …
0 1 = 1
0 0 = 1
1 0 = 0
1 1 = 1

That does not suit me.





Many thanks to everyone for the ideas ! :smiley:

Could anyone explain practical usage for this so called implication?

Other than testing a single neuron neural network :wink:

1 Like

Best example I can come up with is in test-driven development where it can be an elegant way of writing an assert statement when you only need to worry about the state of B when A is true, otherwise you don’t care. But you can do that anyhow by prefacing the assertion with IF A, which will be more readily understood by the majority, so it is by no means essential - which is probably why it is seldom implemented.



Thanks for the explanation @jeremy5, now I have to see what

mean and I might understand.

In my work I have never came accross two objects to be related to one another in such a way. It might as well be that I didn’t see they are. :wink:

1 Like

From Wikipedia:

A - the chief. He can order “work” (1) or say “do what you want” (0).
B - subordinate. It can work (1) or idle (0).

0 1 = 1
0 0 = 1
1 0 = 0
1 1 = 1

In my case, if A (0), then B can be just anything. And if already A (1), then B must be exactly 1 for normal operation, otherwise False. :slightly_smiling_face:

That is a false statement in 99% of the cases.

You need a context and also it’s easier to understand the assertion if you change the language slightly:

In the context of the imminent Employee Annual Reviews; when the Boss is in the office the Employee should be seen working hard. When the Boss is out it makes no difference whether the Employee works hard or slacks.

(Don’t examine this facetious argument too closely or you’ll see the cracks…)

Yeah, this is my problem, I see the cracks in every case I try to apply this logic. :smiley:

The implication will return True