info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Proof that Olcott doesn't understand proof by contradiction
13 views
Skip to first unread message
immibis
Jan 21, 2024, 8:20:28 PMJan 21
to
I am camouflaged in all environments at the same time.
(1) I am camouflaged in grass right now.
(2) Sand and grass are different colours.
From (1) and (2) we get immediately:
(3) I am not camouflaged in sand right now.
No! I don't like this! I said I was camouflaged in all environments!
What if we just reverse (3):
(1) I am camouflaged in grass right now.
(2) Sand and grass are different colours.
(3) I am camouflaged in sand right now.
No! I don't like this! There's a self-contradiction!
What if we just delete (1) and (2):
(3) I am camouflaged in sand right now.
Perfect. See, now that I've just deleted the annoying contradictions
from my paper, I must be right because I have not written down any
contradictions.
(1) I am camouflaged in grass right now.
(2) Sand and grass are different colours.
From (1) and (2) we get immediately:
(3) I am not camouflaged in sand right now.
No! I don't like this! I said I was camouflaged in all environments!
What if we just reverse (3):
(1) I am camouflaged in grass right now.
(2) Sand and grass are different colours.
(3) I am camouflaged in sand right now.
No! I don't like this! There's a self-contradiction!
What if we just delete (1) and (2):
(3) I am camouflaged in sand right now.
Perfect. See, now that I've just deleted the annoying contradictions
from my paper, I must be right because I have not written down any
contradictions.
immibis
Jan 23, 2024, 9:01:33 AMJan 23
to
understand.
olcott
Jan 23, 2024, 12:22:36 PMJan 23
to
self-contradictory questions have no correct answers.
That no one ever bothered to pay enough attention to see the
difference does not entail that this difference does not exist.
--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
immibis
Jan 23, 2024, 12:42:45 PMJan 23
to
On 1/23/24 18:22, olcott wrote:
> On 1/23/2024 8:01 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/22/24 02:20, immibis wrote:
>>> I am camouflaged in all environments at the same time.
>>>
>>> (1) I am camouflaged in grass right now.
>>> (2) Sand and grass are different colours.
>>> From (1) and (2) we get immediately:
>>> (3) I am not camouflaged in sand right now.
>>>
>>> No! I don't like this! I said I was camouflaged in all environments!
>>>
>>> What if we just reverse (3):
>>>
>>> (1) I am camouflaged in grass right now.
>>> (2) Sand and grass are different colours.
>>> (3) I am camouflaged in sand right now.
>>>
>>> No! I don't like this! There's a self-contradiction!
>>>
>>> What if we just delete (1) and (2):
>>>
>>> (3) I am camouflaged in sand right now.
>>>
>>> Perfect. See, now that I've just deleted the annoying contradictions
>>> from my paper, I must be right because I have not written down any
>>> contradictions.
>>
>> Olcott cannot comment on this because it shows how much he doesn't
>> understand.
>
> Proof by contradiction is not exactly the same thing the fact that
> self-contradictory questions have no correct answers.
"I am camouflaged in all environments at the same time" is
> On 1/23/2024 8:01 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/22/24 02:20, immibis wrote:
>>> I am camouflaged in all environments at the same time.
>>>
>>> (1) I am camouflaged in grass right now.
>>> (2) Sand and grass are different colours.
>>> From (1) and (2) we get immediately:
>>> (3) I am not camouflaged in sand right now.
>>>
>>> No! I don't like this! I said I was camouflaged in all environments!
>>>
>>> What if we just reverse (3):
>>>
>>> (1) I am camouflaged in grass right now.
>>> (2) Sand and grass are different colours.
>>> (3) I am camouflaged in sand right now.
>>>
>>> No! I don't like this! There's a self-contradiction!
>>>
>>> What if we just delete (1) and (2):
>>>
>>> (3) I am camouflaged in sand right now.
>>>
>>> Perfect. See, now that I've just deleted the annoying contradictions
>>> from my paper, I must be right because I have not written down any
>>> contradictions.
>>
>> Olcott cannot comment on this because it shows how much he doesn't
>> understand.
>
> Proof by contradiction is not exactly the same thing the fact that
> self-contradictory questions have no correct answers.
self-contradictory. The correct answer is: "No you're not."
0 new messages