Bash for your day.

http://www.bash.org/?416874
http://www.bash.org/?416857

(no subject)

Bwahaha, I approach with my mathematical prowess of direct reasoning.

http://www.bash.org/?3787

Two mistakes: using the Law of Detachment (or as our class likes to call it, Separation) these statements cannot be proved, because they don't apply the law correctly. using the law of syllogism (the law of easiness) is also not applied properly. therefore neither set of conditionals can be proven true, using the givens.

Conditional#1: If something is revenge, then it is sweet.

Hypothesis: something is revenge | conclusion: It is sweet.

Conditional#1.5 Revenge is best served cold.

Hypothesis: something is revenge | conclusion: it is best served cold.

Now, the given conclusion using the law of detachment in this case is that revenge is ice cream.

However, the law of detachment tells us that no conclusion can be reached because we do not know that somethign is revenge. The law of syllogism also does not work because the middle statements aren't identical. (revenge is sweet, sweet stuff is ice cream= revenge is ice cream)

Therefore, for this branch of reasoning, revenge=/= icecream.

The second one comes much closer.

peanut butter is good,
boobies are good,
therefore boobies are peanut butter

His only mistake is that good and boobies should be transposed in the second conditional, then he would have an excellent example of the law of syllogism in action.


Peanut butter is good,
Goodness is boobies.

Peanut butter is boobies.