Theorem: There is an incorrect conclusion drawn from the above theorem - that Emma is not a nerd.
Proof: - Emma set out her argument using mathematical logic. - Only nerds understand mathematical logic. - Thus we have a contradiction between the form of Emma's argument and it's conclusion, such that the contradiction implies that the conclusion is false. - Therefore, Emma is a nerd.
Theorem: Emma is a big nerd.
Proof: See above theorem for proof that Emma is a nerd. - Let n be the set of all nerds. - For every person P there exists a condition Q such that if Q is met, P is an element of n. - Also, there exists a condition Q+ such that if Q+ is met, P is an element of the set of all big nerds N, which is a subset of n. - The condition Q is defined to be the setting out of an argument in mathematical logic. - The condition Q+ is defined to be the setting out of an argument in mathematical logic followed by using mathematical logic to try to disprove condition Q for oneself. - Thus Q+ is satisfied for P(Emma), which implies that P(Emma) is an element of N.
according to your lemma, you have now proven that you are a nerd, since although you don't understand the title of the blog post, you understood what i was talking about in my argument no matter how wrong it was. There was no restricting criteria in your lemma, so if you understand anything that I'm talking about, you're a nerd. Welcome to the club!
I don't have too much time on my hands, i just use what i do have unwisely...
Theorem: There is an incorrect conclusion drawn from the above theorem - that Emma is not a nerd.
ReplyDeleteProof:
- Emma set out her argument using mathematical logic.
- Only nerds understand mathematical logic.
- Thus we have a contradiction between the form of Emma's argument and it's conclusion, such that the contradiction implies that the conclusion is false.
- Therefore, Emma is a nerd.
Theorem: Emma is a big nerd.
Proof: See above theorem for proof that Emma is a nerd.
- Let n be the set of all nerds.
- For every person P there exists a condition Q such that if Q is met, P is an element of n.
- Also, there exists a condition Q+ such that if Q+ is met, P is an element of the set of all big nerds N, which is a subset of n.
- The condition Q is defined to be the setting out of an argument in mathematical logic.
- The condition Q+ is defined to be the setting out of an argument in mathematical logic followed by using mathematical logic to try to disprove condition Q for oneself.
- Thus Q+ is satisfied for P(Emma), which implies that P(Emma) is an element of N.
according to your lemma, you have now proven that you are a nerd, since although you don't understand the title of the blog post, you understood what i was talking about in my argument no matter how wrong it was. There was no restricting criteria in your lemma, so if you understand anything that I'm talking about, you're a nerd. Welcome to the club!
ReplyDeleteI don't have too much time on my hands, i just use what i do have unwisely...
don't worry Emma, you're in good company... if you like getting pegged, that is!
ReplyDeletemuahahaha!