Doesn't this strike you as odd? Buterin struggles with logic

[RawDog]

Buterin, playing contrarian, however, dismissed the idea with his assessment of the evidence.

"If you have a good way or a noisy way to prove something and you choose the noisy way, it means that you can’t do the good way," he added.

Technically, he should have said: "If you have a good way and a noisy way to prove something".  Doesn't it seem unlikely that Buterin would fuck up a Boolean operator in a sentence?  Clearly he must know how to use these really well for programming.

[Gleb Gamow]

Buterin, playing contrarian, however, dismissed the idea with his assessment of the evidence.

"If you have a good way or a noisy way to prove something and you choose the noisy way, it means that you can’t do the good way," he added.

Technically, he should have said: "If you have a good way and a noisy way to prove something".  Doesn't it seem unlikely that Buterin would fuck up a Boolean operator in a sentence?  Clearly he must know how to use these really well for programming.

I'm gonna give him the benefit of doubt that he was trying to espouse the correct sentiment.

[Divinespark]

Look, Vitalik is not a native english speaker so sometimes when you are operating in a second language, these misspeaks happen. I am gonna give him the benefit of the doubt here.

[RawDog]

Look, Vitalik is not a native english speaker so sometimes when you are operating in a second language, these misspeaks happen. I am gonna give him the benefit of the doubt here.

Boolean operators work identically in Russian, French and English.  All other languages too.

[cjmoles]

Look, Vitalik is not a native english speaker so sometimes when you are operating in a second language, these misspeaks happen. I am gonna give him the benefit of the doubt here.

Boolean operators work identically in Russian, French and English.  All other languages too.

Well, maybe his logic was basically correct. 

If <this == 1> && <that == 1>then <state == 1>, if <this == 1> && <that == 0>then <state == 0>, if <this == 0> && <that == 1>then <state == 0>,if <this == 0> && <that == 0>then <state == 0>  So, the bool "and" operator requires all "true" inputs to produce a "true" state on the output.

However, if <this == 1> || <that == 1>then <state == 1>, if <this == 1> || <that == 0>then <state == 1>, if <this == 0> || <that == 1>then <state == 1>, if <this == 0> || <that == 0>then <state == 0>  So, the bool "or" operator only requires, at least, 1 of the inputs to be "true" to produce a "true" state on the output.

If a person had a choice between this "or" that but not this "and" that, then how would that translate into a pseudocode of Vitalik's argument?

Contrast that with: if <this == 1> ^^ <that == 1>then <state == 0>,if <this ==1> ^^ <that == 0>then <state == 1>, if <this == 0> ^^ <that==1>then <state == 1>, if <this == 0> ^^ <that == 0>then <state == 0> The "xor" operator requires one or the other input, but not both, to be "true" to produce a "true" state on the output.

So, in which truth table does Vitalic's argument fall?

[Za1n]

He said it exactly as he should have. Wright could present the proof in a good way or present the proof in a bad (noisy) way, he chose the bad way. He can't choose to present the good way and the bad way at the same time, thus negating the use of "and" suggestion. That would be like saying I am going to work and I am going to take the day off.