/lit/ - Literature

>>4272006
I reverse image searched your painting because I thought it looked gnarly that the man was tearing his face off.

I was disappointed to learn that it was pie.

>>4272006
You can't without the addition of more information. It's a very old logical fallacy. "Socrates is a man" and "Socrates is mortal" do not produce "All men are mortal".

if E -> F
E
F

your conclusion would be "for everyone there is someone that cares about them." or F
it's a conditional statement and needs to have the antecedent affirmed or consequent denied in order to be a valid argument which the first premise does so it would be a case of modus ponens

>>4272006
>How can I make this argument logically valid
I'm pretty sure there's no way to "fix" a logically invalid argument. If you change your premise or your conclusion you're making a new argument.

That argument is invalid because it's invalid.

>>4272006
And you need to add more information to make it valid. Let's imagine that there are three people: A, B, and C. Each person cares about one or more people. Let's say A and B cares about C, and C cares about B.

That leaves A, whom nobody cares about.

If you added some constraint like:
(A cares about B) implies (B cares about A) that would ensure your conclusion is valid. That would make it a symmetric relation - as it is, it's a one-way relation.

>>4272006
You're forgetting that it's possible for two people to care about the same person.

>>4272006 (OP)

P1: Vx∃y Θ(x,y)
C: ~[ Vx∃y Θ(x,y) -> Vx∃y Θ(y,x) ]
Vx∃y Θ(x,y)
Θ(a,y)
Vx∃y Θ(y,x)
Θ(y,a)

It presumes reciprocity is what the problem becomes; it's reduced to x cares about y, so y must care about x. For all we know, every motherfucker on Earth cares about the same person.

>>4272099
itself?

>>4272104
not necessarily cares about itself, but for all we know the case could be "For all x, there exists a y that x cares about, and y could be me in all cases of x." It doesn't follow that I care about everyone else. In fact, it definitely doesn't follow.

>>4272104
>>4272104
not necessarily cares about itself, but for all we know the case could be "For all x, there exists a y that x cares about," and y could be me in all cases of x. It doesn't follow that I care about everyone else, or that there exists anyone in the world that cares about everyone else.

>>4272036
Go kill yourself, you worthless idiot.

>>4272151
dunno why i lol'd so hard at this