[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 26 KB, 208x232, Screen shot 2017-12-30 at 11.31.14 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9404103 No.9404103[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

i dont think therefore i dont am

>> No.9404111
File: 109 KB, 588x823, brainlet13.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9404111

>denying the consequent

>> No.9404112

How can you refer to "am" without also being it?

>> No.9404305
File: 22 KB, 485x443, hmm.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9404305

>>9404112
Wat

>> No.9404313
File: 37 KB, 586x578, 1512347068367.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9404313

>all our laws begin to break down

>> No.9404320

iPhone think,
therefore iPhone am
-Siri

>> No.9404335
File: 71 KB, 707x500, 14753038401741.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9404335

>our world is the best of all possible worlds

>> No.9404340

>>9404313
http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sum+x+to+infinity+of+-%281%2Fx%5E2%29
????

>> No.9404381
File: 55 KB, 617x347, 1509035736738.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9404381

>I can not only fathom infinity, I can also set limits to it! PLUS one day I was bored, so being the genius I am I decided to count to infinity. Of course I had to count hundreds of times per second to accomplish this heavy task in a few short hours but that is truly an easy for a mind of my caliber.

>> No.9405703

>I don't think therefore I don't am
Wouldn't the negation of the statement be something else? It's in an implication operator so it can be rephrased as
>If you think then you are
IIRC negation would be
>I do not think and I am

>> No.9405704

>>9404103
Beautiful.

>> No.9405824

>>9404103
good job retard

>> No.9405829
File: 53 KB, 403x448, 1513270125489.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9405829

>>9404335
>there's more than one possible world

>> No.9405830

Prove to me that denying the consequent isn't valid. Prove to me that material implication is correct.

>> No.9405846

>>9404340
not sure if bait