/lit/ - Literature

>>11794926
>ming mong

>>10466920
>It's like being a foodie

Mc'Kill yourself

>>8251580
>read tranquilly in my car
>normie comes and ask me why am i alone and why am i doing nothing
>it's a social faux pas nowadays to read on your own in your car

>>6601417
Sartre here, I misread Being and Time.

Please stop defending me. It is embarrassing.

>>6547842
How is it possible that in a post about how to logic and you are making these illogical claims and analogies?

>Jesus, you don't develop critical thinking by copying lists of presets.

So you have actually never studied logic have you? Ok guy, explain this to me without any prior knowledge, and then tell me at the end of it that what you just read takes no critical reasoning to understand, reject, or defend.

Giraud's axioms for a category C are:

C has a small set of generators, and admits all small colimits. Furthermore, colimits commute with fiber products.
Sums in C are disjoint. In other words, the fiber product of X and Y over their sum is the initial object in C.
All equivalence relations in C are effective.
The last axiom needs the most explanation. If X is an object of C, an "equivalence relation" R on X is a map R→X×X in C such that for any object Y in C, the induced map Hom(Y,R)→Hom(Y,X)×Hom(Y,X) gives an ordinary equivalence relation on the set Hom(Y,X). Since C has colimits we may form the coequalizer of the two maps R→X; call this X/R. The equivalence relation is "effective" if the canonical map

R \to X \times_{X/R} X \,\!
is an isomorphism.

This is related to critical thinking whether you like it or not. Deciding upon symbols, words, syllogisms, etc, and then passing them down over generations allows for progress on what is proven or not proven to be true or even valid.

>The existence of the list, let alone referring to it as some sort of a bible, is not even slightly constructive to your ability to think.

Are lists of the English vocabulary then not even slightly constructive with your ability to read and write in English?

>Critical thinking is the part that leads you to realizing that the logic is faulty and why it is faulty, this is the part you wish to replace with a flowchart.

No it isn't, you are just saying that.

That is like me going up to a child who is learning how to read English and saying.

Reading is the part that leads you to understand what these symbols mean in the page and to make sense of them, and this is the part you wish to replace with this list of vocabulary.

Do you see how nonsensical that is? That you assume so much about the child and what they want to do with the vocabulary list?

>Here's one: let's go to the gym and lift the lightest possible weights - in fact let's ask our friend to lift them for us or bring a device to do it for us. I mean it's effective, right? While we're at it let's staple our shoes together instead of learning to tie or shoelaces!

Then what the fuck are you doing right now? Are you not by "helping" whoever you are replying to,"lifting for him"? You showing him the way is robbing him of his own work! You hypocritical thief!

>>6547842
How is it possible that in a post about how to logic and you are making these illogical claims and analogies?

>Jesus, you don't develop critical thinking by copying lists of presets.

So you have actually never studied logic have you? Ok guy, explain this to me without any prior knowledge, and then tell me at the end of it that what you just read takes no critical reasoning to understand, reject, or defend.

Giraud's axioms for a category C are:

C has a small set of generators, and admits all small colimits. Furthermore, colimits commute with fiber products.
Sums in C are disjoint. In other words, the fiber product of X and Y over their sum is the initial object in C.
All equivalence relations in C are effective.
The last axiom needs the most explanation. If X is an object of C, an "equivalence relation" R on X is a map R→X×X in C such that for any object Y in C, the induced map Hom(Y,R)→Hom(Y,X)×Hom(Y,X) gives an ordinary equivalence relation on the set Hom(Y,X). Since C has colimits we may form the coequalizer of the two maps R→X; call this X/R. The equivalence relation is "effective" if the canonical map

R \to X \times_{X/R} X \,\!
is an isomorphism.

This is related to critical thinking whether you like it or not. Deciding upon symbols, words, syllogisms, etc, and then passing them down over generations allows for progress on what is proven or not proven to be true or even valid.

>The existence of the list, let alone referring to it as some sort of a bible, is not even slightly constructive to your ability to think.

Are lists of the English vocabulary then not even slightly constructive with your ability to read and write in English?

>Critical thinking is the part that leads you to realizing that the logic is faulty and why it is faulty, this is the part you wish to replace with a flowchart.

No it isn't, you are just saying that.

That is like me going up to a child who is learning how to read English and saying.

Reading is the part that leads you to understand what these symbols mean in the page and to make sense of them, and this is the part you wish to replace with this list of vocabulary.

Do you see how nonsensical that is? That you assume so much about the child and what they want to do with the vocabulary list?

>Here's one: let's go to the gym and lift the lightest possible weights - in fact let's ask our friend to lift them for us or bring a device to do it for us. I mean it's effective, right? While we're at it let's staple our shoes together instead of learning to tie or shoelaces!

Then what the fuck are you doing right now? Are you not by "helping" whoever you are replying to "lifting for him"? You showing him the way is robbing him of his own work! You hypocritical thief!

>>6498010
>>6498042
>>6498068
>>6498072
Why are you guys so stupid.

He clearly said a red flag, then explained just in case you were spazzing out that yes, by red flag he meant "I have my doubts"

Holy shit

>>5994780
What...what...

What are they even saying?

>>4963752
That was atrocious. The misplaced adverbs, the clichés, the fucking goon squad, oh wow.

Don't post that shit here anymore, makes me sick

>>4926885
Fuck you