Thread: Nand/Nor

/

This is high brow stuff for me. Gonna have to come back to it a little later to give you a proper critique.

Ha ha, made me goggle. Five times. I even went to wiki p. Wonderful associative value between to two stanzas. I'm assuming the equations are examples of Boolean logic. Then, as the then wasn't introduced in the first stanza, it led the way nicely into the second stanza. Here is an American thing, I had to google the first stanza of the second part. I was thrilled to see it like on every site, mostly in capital or bold font. A quote by A. Ransome. A charming final line. A fine poem.

Duffers was my introduction to logic, and as a 9 year old it took me a while to get it. Arthur Ransome, apart from being a first-class children's author was an amazing character; a spy, intrepid traveller. He married Trotsky's personal secretary (useful for a spy in Russia!)

The books are worth a read even for a grown-up, they remind you of what it was like to be young.

nice piece. interesting concept - wringing substance out of mathematics! If we could all be so lucky.

Bloggs, I ain't smart enough to keep up with you, so I will limit my comments to your poetic form (which is very strong). Hope you understand.

Originally Posted by Bloggsworth

Nand/Nor A Question of Logic
Part I

They say that arithmetic is logic in a posh frock;
I heard them, this morning, on the radio:
“If A and B OR A or B

While (A and B) OR (A or B) then…" If it is in parentheses, does it need to be italicized?

I can’t handle these not numbers,
the place-holders which aren't really there at all. The period should be a semi colon.
they’re all empty boxes to me.

Part II, or if NOT, then

------------------------------------------------------------------TEAR ALONG DOTTED LINE -------------------------------------------------------------------

“Better drowned than duffers if not duffers won't drown”

Of course, perfectly logical, why didn’t I think of that.

Let them sail. This is my favorite line in the piece. Very nice juxtaposition of long and short line.

I thought Boole was marbles with red wine and garlic,

played in the town square

by provincial Frenchmen.

But it now appears that I can’t spell either, I suggest switching "it now" to "now it". Also, is "either" correct here? Or should it be "too"?

and that Boole was another thinker altogether.

Never mind - Pass the brioche Mildred.

Hmm, I really like this it short and simple. I did notice one thing. Stanza2 Line 2 [Of course, perfectly logical, why didn’t I think of that.] should have ? at the end. again keep up the good work!

Squalid G,

Thanks. The italics are speech, I prefer italics to quotation marks, having said that, I realise that I have done both. The parentheses are because they are self contained arguments like 3(A+B) . The either is because I can't do logic and I can't spell either, the use of too, though common, isn't correct. I'll double check the punctuation! I think I agree with the strikes-out... On second thoughts, no I don't, but I will think about them, but they may just be the difference between English-English & American-English usage, like visit with & speak with when we would just say I would like to visit you or I would like to speak to you; the I and you clearly indicate that you are not talking to anyone else, so the with is redundant; but then we British never think Americans use 10 words where 100 will do, specially in sports commentary

They're all empty boxes to me is the equivalent of the English phrase It's all Double Dutch to me, though I can't remember from where - Poland, Hungary, somewhere like that.

Capo de tutti Arachnids,

I don't think so - It's a rhetorical question, had it been: Why didn't you think of that? I would agree.

Oh, and the Tear along dotted line is is both a play on a common instruction and an invitation to junk the rest of the poem if you don't like part 1.

Oops! I meant quotation marks and italics, not parenthesis and italics. I think the use of both is curious.

And with "either" - if you are implying that you can't do both logic and spelling, then okay, but I still think the use of the word is incorrect if there is only one thing that you actually say you can't do. Does that make sense?

I can do neither, therefore I can't do either....