/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11763889
humans intuitively understand that proof by contradiction is unaesthetic

>>11763889
If 1 > 2 then 1 > 2
If 2 > 1 then 1 !> 2

What's the argument/concern/problem here?

>>11763899
you think you're so smart with your exclamation points and you don't even recognize contrapositives

>>11763907
I recognize your response as a contrapositive or epsilon that can ultimately be discarded through my logarithmic language of differential discards vs defining moments and take the challenge as one to refine my own presentation of proofs:

If a > b then a > b
If b >> a then a < b

OR

If a > b then a > b
If a! then a < b

That better for you?

>>11763889
I can't formulate a question or statement that number 2 would answer.

Number 1 could be a response to.
>They were supposed to be here by three, what time is it?

For sentence 2 The only time much after three that is not after three is if it is so late it's back to being before three which could be 12:00 or I guess 9:00 depending on your definition.

>>11763889
They're not equivalent.

So assuming the thing is after 3, it won't be much past 3. Like when someone guessed the time:
>If it's after 3 it's probably only a little so.

The second one is saying if the quantity or time is a lot bigger than 3 then it is not bigger than 3. Which makes no sense time was or quantity wise.

But you didn't give context. The context would change things.

>>11763946
It kind of makes sense time wise. If it's 3:05 you'd say it's a bit past three, if it's like 3:55 you wouldn't really describe it as after three anymore, you'd probably start referring to it as before four.

>>11763956
Yeah but 4:30 is after 4 and it's also much after 3.

>>11763889
circumference < diameter < radius < it
it > radius > diameter > circumference

>>11763956
Which is why context is important for any statement.
>what is 3?
>what is much?

>>11763889
Number 2 isnt necessarily nonsensical. The way you wrote this post is retarded though. I really wonder if people write so badly by accident, or if they are trying to achieve some goal I am unaware of.
Anyways, imagine you forgot when an important event is. For all you know, it could have have happened today at three o clock. Now, it is 6:00 PM, and you really wonder if you missed it or not. You conclude, however, that too much time has passed after three for the thing to have occured at three, as you would have heard about it by now.

>>11763889
Both are nonsensical but they are equivalent.
The only way you can make (1) make sense is if there is an unstated deduction, D, that allows the bound to be valid.
In reality, 1 should read:
If it is after three and D is true then it is not much after three.
The negation of this would be:
If it is not much after three then D is false or it is not after three.

If it is implicitly agreed that D is true (but unstated) both of these modified statements are equivalent to the ones you posted (just let D be true and simplify the statements).

>>11763889
All I see is π^Γ(1 + π)

All arguments greater than 3 can be reduced, if 3 does not come before the presentation of an argument set then it cannot be reduced.

>>11763889
What the fuck is your definition of equivalence used to even ask your question, OP? In order to reach some satisfactory equivalence one has to at least present some example of two sentences that satisfy equivalence for yourself otherwise everyone will just be shooting blindly.

>>11763889
>1 "If it is after three, it is not much after three."
This is obviously false unless you add the condition that it is not much after three to the premise.

>2 "If it is much after three, it is not after three."
This is obviously false unless you change the conclusion to "it is not after three or it is much after three."

A falsity implies a falsity.

In this thread we seem to have a lot of people who aren't idiomatic speakers of English weighing in on a question of linguistics as if it were a question of logic.
The first statement is logically, given common knowledge about time, equivalent to a statement "it isn't much after three", but it also conveys the possibility that isn't after three yet.
A blank "It isn't much after three" would imply that is after three, just not much. English is not Loglan, and English statements are not to be interpreted as WFFs.
English statements of the form "If x then not x" are not idiomatic ways of expressing "Not x", even though the form "If x then <obvious falsity>" is idiomatic. For example, "If that was really Moot posting then I'm a monkey's uncle".

>>11764515
There is no relevant difference between logical and linguistic interpretations here. If 1 is true then 2 is also true, because it can't be much after three. "If something impossible occured then pigs fly" is a true statement both logically and linguistically.

>>11764559
You seem to have a different concept of what linguistics is about.

>>11764086
Christianity killed more people than national socialism.

>>11764642
Blacks kill more people than terrorists.

>>11764632
Please explain the difference then.

>>11763889
based retard op
2 is nonsense because it violates the arrow of time. 1 doesn’t.