再战日志

蓝羽

以下是引用joe11在2004-10-11 20:57:00的发言：

原文讲 producing buildings that are not functional for public use,

而从 not functional 到not unobtrusive 还得有个过程，但 B 并没有说明这一点。

所以不能一槌子砸定。看看别的感觉逻辑漏洞更多，所以只好选它了。

如果我对原文没理解错的话， unobtrusive 是类似美学概念，而 functional 是技术活，

这道题我同意joe11的理解。

leeon

I have put this quesion in the logic field. Pls refer to the following link:

http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardID=24&ID=4593&page=1

joe11

I don't know what you know, but I have to look deeper into Lawyer_1's illustration.

Need to do some FeiFei-Logic.

leeon

Here "violated this precept" means that the work of architecture not be both inviting and functional for public use, and the "be unobtrusive" is a necessary condition to the precept, so violated the precept means that the work of architectures not be unobtrusive.

That's what Lawyer means, but I can't confirm , if u get any other examples, collect them to put here pls.

valarie

I think "violate the precept" means "violate the precept of "must be unobtrusive, therefore it's not functional".  This is because unobtrusive actually means the opposite of "egoism".

Just my thought.

joe11

Precept = "IF a work of architecture is to be both inviting and functional for public use, it must be unobtrusive."

Leeon:"so violated the precept means that the work of architectures not be unobtrusive. "

上面的 precept 是一个 A→B 的推倒关系，怎么能一否定，仅否定主句B，把条件A给忘了？

非（A→B）= 非（非A  或 B)  =  (A 和 非B)

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-10-13 13:16:00编辑过]

joe11

杀奔 GWD-6.

xealot

加油啊！

leeon

To Valarie and Joe11, I think u're right, if "violated the precept" here means that the work of architectures not be unobtrusive, we would safely arrive at the conclusion as B mentioned.

Xealot,  +U!

蓝羽

9月机经1. 一个长方体要用纸包装，5, 10, 25 inches为高及边长，底面不要包，问最少要用多少面积的纸？

流沙的答案：如果是整张纸的话， （25＋5＋5）×（5＋5＋10）＝700

狗狗:若没限定高与边长, 800

horsefish:2*(5*10+5*25)+10*25=600

我觉得流沙是对的。horsefish的算法是计算表面积，如果要求整张纸就不行了。狗狗的算法是不知道哪个是底面积，什么样的纸可以通用。

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-10-14 1:09:11编辑过]