Whatever doesn't kill you will make you stronger.
Except for bears. Bears will kill you.
Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators
Thanks to eyeball08,Wondergirly,bofh,johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva, for Donating to support the site
Sage advice
Forum rules
Material posted here that is disparaging towards any group on the basis of race, faith, nationality, gender, disability or sexual orientation will be deleted and any poster of such material risks suspension.
Material posted here that is disparaging towards any group on the basis of race, faith, nationality, gender, disability or sexual orientation will be deleted and any poster of such material risks suspension.
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 2564
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:36 pm
- Has thanked: 1104 times
- Been thanked: 1165 times
Re: Sage advice
I don't follow this.
Let set A be anything which kills you;
Let set B be anything which strengthens you.
From the clause, "Whatever doesn't kill you will make you stronger", we know that anything not in set A must be in set B.
It follows that anything not in set B must be in set A otherwise it would violate the first clause as cited above.
Note that this clause does not preclude any element or elements from existing in both sets A and B.
From the second clause, "Except for bears", we can infer that bears are an exception to the first clause and, therefore, exist outside of both sets A and B. We, therefore, have four areas:
1. Elements in set A only: Things that kill you but do not strengthen you;
2. Elements in set B only: Things that strengthen you but do not kill you;
3. Elements in both sets A and B: Things that both kill you and strengthen you.
4. Bears.
However, this is in direct contradiction to the third clause: "Bears will kill you" as this places bears in set A. Bears, therefore, belong either in area 1 or area 3 as listed above.
Julian F. G. W.
Let set A be anything which kills you;
Let set B be anything which strengthens you.
From the clause, "Whatever doesn't kill you will make you stronger", we know that anything not in set A must be in set B.
It follows that anything not in set B must be in set A otherwise it would violate the first clause as cited above.
Note that this clause does not preclude any element or elements from existing in both sets A and B.
From the second clause, "Except for bears", we can infer that bears are an exception to the first clause and, therefore, exist outside of both sets A and B. We, therefore, have four areas:
1. Elements in set A only: Things that kill you but do not strengthen you;
2. Elements in set B only: Things that strengthen you but do not kill you;
3. Elements in both sets A and B: Things that both kill you and strengthen you.
4. Bears.
However, this is in direct contradiction to the third clause: "Bears will kill you" as this places bears in set A. Bears, therefore, belong either in area 1 or area 3 as listed above.
Julian F. G. W.
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 2042
- Joined: November 5th, 2016, 7:41 am
- Has thanked: 762 times
- Been thanked: 1179 times
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 6385
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:35 am
- Has thanked: 1882 times
- Been thanked: 2026 times
Re: Sage advice
Whatever doesn't kill you will make you stronger.
The logically-consistent exception is polio,
The logically-consistent exception is polio,
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 2564
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:36 pm
- Has thanked: 1104 times
- Been thanked: 1165 times
Re: Sage advice
AleisterCrowley wrote:Whatever doesn't kill you will make you stronger.
The logically-consistent exception is polio,
I'm sure there are many exceptions. The first premise is clearly false.
Last time I checked, I had not been killed by a bears. This is not proof that the third premise is false as it is still possible but, based upon how other people in my vicinity have died, I conclude that the third premise is probably false.
If the first and third premises are both false, it seems Very unlikely that the second premise could be true. We, therefore, probably have three false premises and a logical inconsistency.
Things are not looking too good for the O.P.
Julian F. G. W.
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 2042
- Joined: November 5th, 2016, 7:41 am
- Has thanked: 762 times
- Been thanked: 1179 times
-
- The full Lemon
- Posts: 10789
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:17 pm
- Has thanked: 1470 times
- Been thanked: 2996 times
Re: Sage advice
jfgw wrote:Things are not looking too good for the O.P.
Looking good for us, though. The OP, if not dead after posting, is stronger. Either way, we're spared the jokes of the weak.
I don't think I can bear it if that's wrong.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests