[20140927] Math Party
 Peon
 Posts: 96
 Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 8:12 pm
Re: [20140927] Math Party
You sure do like to fill paragraphs with baloney. None of what you said indicates how "The Induction Step
Assume Q(m) is true for all m. That is, a group of m people is a party. Surely, removing a single person from a party will not alter it's party status. Thus, if Q(m) is true, then Q(m + 1) is true." is mathematically valid. Just because you say something "surely" doesn't make it mathematically valid. How can removing a single person from a party "surely" not alter its party status if we consider parties sized two or one or no people at all?
Assume Q(m) is true for all m. That is, a group of m people is a party. Surely, removing a single person from a party will not alter it's party status. Thus, if Q(m) is true, then Q(m + 1) is true." is mathematically valid. Just because you say something "surely" doesn't make it mathematically valid. How can removing a single person from a party "surely" not alter its party status if we consider parties sized two or one or no people at all?
Ask the next question.
 Peon
 Posts: 96
 Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 8:12 pm
Re: [20140927] Math Party
I'm not sure how else to describe a 20post discussion about math pedantry. But if you're not trolling when you describe your "proof" as mathematically valid then I'd hate to see your real proofs. Math isn't just some game of mad libs; not only does the structure have to work but the arguments contained therein have to work as well.
Ask the next question.
 DonRetrasado
 los más retrasadadados
 Posts: 2845
 Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 6:27 am
 Location: ¡Canadia!
Re: [20140927] Math Party
Oh my god I HATE math!!
Astrogirl wrote:Lethal, nobody wants to know about your herpes.
Lethal Interjection wrote:That's good to know. I can avoid a few awkward phone calls now.
 GUTCHUCKER
 Gotchucker's less handsome twin
 Posts: 2126
 Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 2:26 am
 Location: Paradise City?
Re: [20140927] Math Party
Isn't the point that this dude is so pathetic he is resorting to an obviously fallacious proof by induction?
 Lethal Interjection
 Death by Elocution
 Posts: 8051
 Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 2:17 pm
 Location: Behind your ear. It's magic!
 Contact:
Re: [20140927] Math Party
I think the point is that this thread is everything that is wrong with math. In that it is boring.theory wrote:Isn't the point that this dude is so pathetic he is resorting to an obviously fallacious proof by induction?
 Peon
 Posts: 96
 Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 8:12 pm
Re: [20140927] Math Party
Related: https://medium.com/thenib/noyoureabutte6836cc14af6
Zach sure likes his dubious applications of induction
Zach sure likes his dubious applications of induction
Ask the next question.
Re: [20140927] Math Party
What you probably wanted to say is "for some m". Q(m) being true for all m is what you want to prove at the first place.AmagicalFishy wrote: The Induction Step
Assume Q(m) is true for all m.
Other than that, this indeed is a mathematically valid proof. The problem is in the statement "Surely, removing a single person from a party will not alter it's party status." Assuming that statement is true, the proof itself is correct.
The problem with a sand heap is that a sand heap has an infinite number of grains of sand in it, that's why an induction like this cannot work.
Re: [20140927] Math Party
Oh, whoops—my mistake! I did not catch that, haha.lahvak wrote:What you probably wanted to say is "for some m".
I've never heard of the sand heap in that paradox having an infinite number of grains, though; is that something I've just been missing? The reason the assumptionstatement would be true (whether it be for a sand heap or a party) is because of the lack of definition for either. If one defined a party as "A gathering of 40 people," then removing a single person from a 40person party would stop it from being a party (but then there'd be no Sorite's Paradox in the first place).
The paradox a bit more intuitive when one considers a heap of sand, but the same kind of definition can resolve it. Surely, removing a grain of sand from a heap of 1,000,000,000,000 grains does not make it not a heap. And, similarly, removing one more grain of sand does not. But, if we defined a "heap" as 999,999,999,998 grains or more, then removing a third grain of sand would make it not a heap.
Once you definitively define (!) things, there isn't much of a paradox.
Re: [20140927] Math Party
Vopěnka, P. Mathematics in the Alternative Set Theory. Teubner, Leipzig, 1979.AmagicalFishy wrote:I've never heard of the sand heap in that paradox having an infinite number of grains, though; is that something I've just been missing?
Re: [20140927] Math Party
Do you mean "indefinite"?The problem with a sand heap is that a sand heap has an infinite number of grains of sand in it, that's why an induction like this cannot work.
Re: [20140927] Math Party
No, I certainly do not mean "indefinite".Furius wrote:Do you mean "indefinite"?The problem with a sand heap is that a sand heap has an infinite number of grains of sand in it, that's why an induction like this cannot work.

 Posts: 6
 Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:35 pm
Re: [20140927] Math Party
So, the guy in the strip doesn't understand induction, and that's why he has no friends to come to his party? Maybe if you guys here could explain how it works to him, then he'd be better able to have friends.
Re: [20140927] Math Party
I could not find that book anywhere. Would you mind posting a quote? (I am still fairly certain the Sorites Paradox does not require infinite grains of sand, but am curious of the author's purpose in using it for one—and about the claim that it requires an infinite number of grains for the other).