/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4495324]

A = C
B = C
Therefore, all A = all B

[Anonymous No.4495329]

you forgot that C = C

[Anonymous No.4495327]

cool thread

[Anonymous No.4495341]

>5 = (2+3)
>(6-1) = (2+3)
>therefore, all (6-1) = all (2+3)

"all" cancels out, therefore it's correct.

[Anonymous No.4495345]

>>4495341
you only proved it works for those particular numbers

[Anonymous No.4495352]

>>4495345
Tell me. Do you even think before you write?

[Anonymous No.4495353]

Who's the most moe uggu scientist /sci/-kun?

[Anonymous No.4495355]

NO
NO
NO
YOU'RE FUCKING STUPID GO BACK TO /a/

[Anonymous No.4495362]

>>4495324
Checkmate, athiests.

[Anonymous No.4495368]

>>4495355

some /a/ faggots have problem using "=" symbols to say something that isn't "equal to"; help them

[Anonymous No.4495371]

>>4495368
One faggot, to be precise.

[Anonymous No.4495377]

>>4495371

I'm giving him the benefit of doubt

[Anonymous No.4495387]

Do you like anime /sci/?

[Anonymous No.4495392]

Do you like the big bang theory /sci/ ?

[Anonymous No.4495397]

>>4495392
no.

[Anonymous No.4495404]

Do like Microbiology /sci/? An anime about it just got a second season.

[Anonymous No.4495407]

I don't get it, whats the point of this thread?

[Anonymous No.4495415]

>>4495407
To prove that
A = C
B = C
Therefore, all A = all B
Because /a/ needs an unbiased party to tell us who is right.

[Anonymous No.4495422]

>>4495415

I don't like anime, or syllogisms.

Only jesus.

[Anonymous No.4495438]

>>4495387
>>4495392
>>4495404
Do you like derailing /sci/?

[Anonymous No.4495451]

If you want us to tell you whether your logic is sound without telling us the context, you have to write the statement more formally so it isn't prone to multiple interpretations. Go to Wikipedia, learn how to use quantifiers, and ask again.

[Anonymous No.4495459]

>>4495324
Incorrect.

Fill in those variables with actual propositions and you'll quickly see why that is invalid reasoning.

Men are people
Women are people
Therefore, all Men are Women.

[Anonymous No.4495466]

[Anonymous No.4495470]

>>4495459
But then why does it work mathematically:
A = 1 + 2
B = 3
A ≠ B?

[Anonymous No.4495473]

[Anonymous No.4495477]

>>4495352
not really sure what you mean

[Anonymous No.4495478]

[Anonymous No.4495481]

[Anonymous No.4495482]

>>4495459
That doesn't follow on from OP's statements.
Men are People Isn't Men = People.

[Anonymous No.4495487]

[Anonymous No.4495485]

>>4495459
men is a subset of people. Not the same as = It doesnt work for subsets, for obvious reasons

[Anonymous No.4495490]

Does <span class="math">\frac10 = \frac10[/spoiler] or <span class="math">\frac10 \rlap{\kern2pt/}= \frac10[/spoiler]?

[Anonymous No.4495491]

>>4495482
>>4495485
You've managed to break the very core of propositional logic.

Good job.

[Anonymous No.4495492]

>>4495490
Yes,

[Anonymous No.4495493]

[Anonymous No.4495503]

>>4495491
An equals sign was used when it shouldn't have been. There are plenty of other instances were it's acceptable to use =, this wasn't one of them. He used propositional logic incorrectly, and I corrected it. I didn' t discover a gaping flaw in the theory did I?

[Anonymous No.4495510]

>>4495503
No. I guess it was foolish of me to assume he was making a proposition when in fact it makes much more sense that he was indeed just writing something akin to terrible math.

I guess that's why we don't use the equals sign in symbolic logic.

Anyway, OP's your problem now.

[Anonymous No.4495518]

>>4495510
Depends on what logic you're talking about. First-order logic with equality has an = symbol; propositional logic of course does not.

[Anonymous No.4495521]

Not /sci/ related.