SMBC Comics Forum

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.

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.

Isn't that always the goal?

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.

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?