This is a critique of honor societies which do not serve a point in proving someone’s “honor”. The college requirement is essentially: Join this club to prove you have joined this club. Anyone can join an “honor” society without demonstrating anything related to honor, meaning:
([Joining an honor society] => TRUE) <=> [Being allowed to join college]
Being allowed to drive a car implies having a license and having a license implies being allowed to drive a car. Neither of these implies TRUE - in an ideal world at least.
By the way, TRUE is a tautology because it is always true, which is the definition of a tautology. Unnecessary repetition is not a requirement of a tautology.
Drag likes the punchline here, but the setup doesn’t make sense
“So you’re saying I should get a licence so I can drive a car, and I can drive a car because I have a licence?”
Having a qualification isn’t tautological just because it can be phrased in two different ways
(a <=> b) <=/=> [(b => TRUE) <=> a]
This is a critique of honor societies which do not serve a point in proving someone’s “honor”. The college requirement is essentially: Join this club to prove you have joined this club. Anyone can join an “honor” society without demonstrating anything related to honor, meaning:
([Joining an honor society] => TRUE) <=> [Being allowed to join college]
Being allowed to drive a car implies having a license and having a license implies being allowed to drive a car. Neither of these implies TRUE - in an ideal world at least.
By the way, TRUE is a tautology because it is always true, which is the definition of a tautology. Unnecessary repetition is not a requirement of a tautology.