[2015-11-2] Induction

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) :( :o :shock: :? 8) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :wink: :?: :idea: :| (o~o) :geek: :[] :geek2: :][>:=~+:
BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON
Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: [2015-11-2] Induction

Re: [2015-11-2] Induction

Post by Kaharz » Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:06 am

Liriodendron_fagotti wrote:Isn't that always the goal?


Honestly I prefer to just eat a bunch of food, drink some water, take a hot shower and go to bed. Then the next day I can lie to myself and say I don't really hate everything, it is just my hangover. Is it a problem that I get more escapism from the hangover than I do from being drunk?

Re: [2015-11-2] Induction

Post by Armada » Wed Nov 04, 2015 7:54 pm

Kaharz wrote:I think that is joke about the emergent property. At some n+1 the previously identified pattern no longer holds and instead of feeling better you end up face down in a pool of your own vomit in an alley.

I just thought he was going start a housing development project in an alley. I didn't consider anyone could still do logic reasoning when lying face down in a pool of their own vomit in an alley.

Re: [2015-11-2] Induction

Post by Liriodendron_fagotti » Wed Nov 04, 2015 6:05 pm

Isn't that always the goal?

Re: [2015-11-2] Induction

Post by Kaharz » Wed Nov 04, 2015 1:12 am

I think that is joke about the emergent property. At some n+1 the previously identified pattern no longer holds and instead of feeling better you end up face down in a pool of your own vomit in an alley.

[2015-11-2] Induction

Post by Armada » Wed Nov 04, 2015 12:35 am

When I was learning proof by induction I also initially thought that this was a flaw in inductive reasoning, until I finally learned how to do proof by induction right. You can't give a proof by just showing that the base case and the next case holds. Besides the base case you also need to prove that if n holds, n + 1 also holds, for any n.

So to get a proof by induction that more beer always makes you feel better, you need to objectively prove that if I had n beers another beer (n + 1) will make me feel better. The mistake here is that this student thought that he had an inductive proof after showing he felt better after just two beers (base case + 1).

If only he had done his proof by induction right, he wouldn't need so many experiments. Unless of course the goal of his research was to get as drunk as possible.

Top

cron