/sci/ - Science & Math

>implying

that physicist Green was on NPR saying if they had energetic enough proton collisions at the LHC, it might seen particles/energy off our Brane.

>>3998434

If Op exsists, then he is a homosexual.
If any thread is initiated, then Op exsists.
I am writing in a thread.
Hence Op is a homosexual.

Easy mode:
<span class="math">(B \Rightarrow \neg M) \Rightarrow (T \Rightarrow \neg S)
B \Rightarrow K
K \Rightarrow \neg M
\neg S \Rightarrow N
therefore, T \Rightarrow N
Use rules of implication to prove[/spoiler]

Easy mode:
<span class="math">(B \Rightarrow \neg M) \Rightarrow (T \Rightarrow \neg S)[\math]
<span class="math">B \Rightarrow K[\math]
K \Rightarrow \neg M[\math]
\neg S \Rightarrow N[\math]
therefore, T \Rightarrow N[\math]

Use rules of implication to prove[/spoiler][/spoiler]

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Correlation implies causation.

>>3998434
Easy mode:
<span class="math">(B \Rightarrow \neg M) \Rightarrow (T \Rightarrow \neg S)[/spoiler]
<span class="math">B \Rightarrow K [/spoiler]
<span class="math">K \Rightarrow \neg M[/spoiler]
<span class="math">\neg S \Rightarrow N[/spoiler]
therefore,<span class="math"> T \Rightarrow N[/spoiler]

Use rules of implication to prove

>>3998434
>Time to get logical

Always nice to welcome another person to agnosticism.

>>3998476
He didn't say "Time to get logical, folks".
He said "Time to get logical folks" without comma, thus meaning he is looking for logical folks.

>>3998493
That's stupid

>>3998470

>>3998684
Explain why this shit ain't logical:

>Absence of evidence is evidence of absence
>Correlation implies causation

Originally "logic" meant the same as "the laws of thought" and logicians studied the subject in the
hope that they could discover better ways of thinking and surer ways of avoiding error than their
forefathers knew, and in the hope that they could teach these arts to all mankind. Experience has
shown, however, that this is a wild-goose chase. A normal healthy human being has built in him all the
"laws of thought" anybody has ever invented, and there is nothing that logicians can teach him about
thinking and avoiding error. This is not to say that he knows how he thinks and it is not to say that he
never makes errors. The situation is analogous to the walking equipment all normal healthy human
beings are born with. I don't know how I walk, but I do it. Sometimes I stumble. The laws of walking
might be of interest to physiologists and physicists; all I want to do is to keep on walking.

-P.R. Halmos

>>3999013
We are much worse at walking than we are at logicing.

Anyone disagree with my two statements? How can you ignore my trips like that?
>>3999000

>>3999013
We are much better at walking than we are at logicing.

Anyone disagree with my two statements? How can you ignore my trips like that?
>>3999000