[ 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: 38 KB, 415x470, 1529891172999.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16128602 No.16128602 [Reply] [Original]

>the exception that proves the rule

>> No.16128605

example?

>> No.16128611
File: 20 KB, 360x360, 479e30df0e6d1774f8cb53d530e0935d.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16128611

>>16128602
> you can't prove a negative

>> No.16128612

>>16128605
There are none, because that's a stupid concept

>> No.16128613
File: 51 KB, 903x960, 49288780c2f39ca5c84b7375422e12be9edbcf96r1-903-960v2_hq.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16128613

>>16128602
> all models are wrong, but some are useful

>> No.16128614

>>16128611
>>16128613
Both of these are true. Are you retarded?

>> No.16128615

>>16128602
Yes.

If you had two magnets without markings, you could deduce similar poles via perfect counter-balance, only possible in "Theory".

>why dont you connect the two
Not posssible, figure it out.

>> No.16128618
File: 40 KB, 500x500, artworks-000430799694-d0xfpp-t500x500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16128618

> Both of these are true. Are you retarded?

>> No.16128625

You are stylish.

>> No.16128627

>>16128625
And iconic.

>> No.16128630

>>16128625
>>16128615
>>16128627
Meds, NOW

>> No.16128671
File: 1.57 MB, 1080x2448, Screenshot_20240413-091057_Camera.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16128671

>>16128630
On it.

Thanks, I sometimes forget to take care of myself, I just get so caught up is helping the poor*cough-humble-brag-cough*.

>> No.16128688

>>16128602
>the exception that proves the rule
Valid reasoning by B if A tries to disprove a deduction from a bigger number of observations with a deduction from a smaller number of observations.

>>16128611
>you can't prove a negative
Valid reasoning by B if A tries to disprove X by fallaciously claiming a lack of observation of X. After all: there's a chance that X might be observed somewhere sometime in the future so it's a matter of probability rather than absolute presence/absence.

>> No.16128690

>16128625
>16128627
>16128671
Why are off-topic spam like this allowed on /sci/? They spam every thread with nonsense day in and day out.

>> No.16128692

>>16128690
Fagpot

>> No.16128699

>>16128612
all primes are odd
proof: 2 is even

>> No.16128707

>>16128602
>>16128605
>>16128612
It is applicable to statistical rules (i.e. trends). You would remark a chinese individual having all white hair due to albinism because they statistically are very likely to have black hair. The fact that this would be remarkable is the because it is an exception to the strong statistical trend.

>> No.16128709

>>16128699
More like: anons are virgins. Some anons are married though. Therefore not all anons are virgins or marriage != non-virginity. Still the majority of anons are virgins. Married anons are
>>the exception that proves the rule.
Married anons are an invalid counterexample to the claim that anons are virgins.

>> No.16128711

>>16128613
models are not complete but are useful, they are less wrong as compared to stupid shit. they don't perfectly represent reality as they are not complete, but partially describing reality works better than having no fucking clue.

>> No.16128715

>>16128711
>models are not complete but are useful
What the fuck do you mean not complete?
> they don't perfectly represent reality
They can perfectly represent the part of reality that you're studying. In what fucking sense is the model wrong?

>> No.16128716

>>16128709
All white people are evil and racist.
> but what about X philantropist
Exception that proves the rule.

>> No.16128722

>>16128715
>What the fuck do you mean not complete?
you brainlet

>> No.16128726

>>16128716
>ALL
Can you read? Retard.

>> No.16128743

>>16128716
Therefore we must agree on a definition of what we're studying and compare observations from different frames of reference.

>> No.16128796

>>16128726
Remove the word all if you dislike it. My point still stands.

>> No.16128851
File: 32 KB, 600x668, 852.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16128851

>epistemological a priory platonic qualia

>> No.16128868
File: 79 KB, 1160x770, 1712749994039490.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16128868

>dualism
>dichotomy
>dimorphisn
>dihydrogenmonoxide
>opposites
>inverse

>> No.16128895

>>16128709
>>16128716
It's not PROOF though

>> No.16128910
File: 160 KB, 368x450, cat_brain_retard.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16128910

>appeal to authority

>> No.16128911

>>16128868
Future humans will have extreme female biased size dimorphism

>> No.16129035
File: 23 KB, 488x463, fcc2ee36a7f4c1fef8d61326f58723a2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16129035

>0.9999...=1

>> No.16129039

retard thread

>> No.16129051
File: 141 KB, 971x565, brainlets.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16129051

>>16129035
>actually... did you know that [math]0.999\ne 1[/math] in the hyperreals?

>> No.16129055

>>16129035
>>16129051
0.999... is not real in nature so it's completely useless to talk about. Make up whatever "facts" you want about it.

>> No.16129071

>>16128911
Yo I've been looking for you to dump porn for months now, assuming you're the same poster

>> No.16129074

>>16129071
You know it senpai. I've been very busy for like a year now and occupying my free time with other things.

>> No.16129077

>only the natural numbers between 1 and 10^80 can be considered since that's what appears in nature

>> No.16129106

>>16129055
wym? 1 does exist in nature

>> No.16129108

>>16128602
The only case I found in which it makes any sense, is that if you ever meet an exception, you may ask him "you're russian and you don't drink? I heard all russians drink booze. Is it true?" and if he tells "yes" then maybe that rule is not that wrong, but his existence alone may indicate that "not exactly"

>> No.16129183

>>16128602
>>16128707
>>16128709
>>16128716
This is not how it works. Here's a real example of an exception proving the rule:
You're looking for a spot to park your car. You see a sign that says "no parking". Therefore, you can deduce that, in places where there is no sign, parking is allowed. The fact that an explicit exception was made proves the implicit existence of the general rule that it is an exception to.

>> No.16129236

>>16129183
What if the sign says "No Killing"
Dear me, it seems your logic has failed *tips fedora*

>> No.16129293

>>16129077
Yes? The rest is fantasy, might as well talk about lord of the rings or your favorite anime or something.
>It's real if I can imagine it!
Nope

>> No.16129670

>>16128605
Nothing can be its own opposite which is why the value of nothing, 0, is allowed to be its own opposite number -0=0.

>> No.16129815

>>16129670
the opposite of nothing is +-infinity

>> No.16129818

>>16129815
>no "complex infinities"
I wouldnt even know what to do with it.

>> No.16129820

>The OP that proves OP is a fag i.e. most OPs on sci bar St. Barkon

>> No.16129896

>>16129815
No, opposites numbers are defined through the additive inverse 1/-1, 2/-2, etc.