A Logical Proof

girls-are-evil

Now as some of you might already know, i love logic and reason.

I also love humour.

So, it is not without a little sadness i point out the following:

What is shown above is a load!

Point 1. Time and money NEVER equals time TIMES money when time equals money for any other case than both time and money equaling 2!?? Hence Proof is flawed. (Unless – both time and money can somehow be limited to only ever holding the value +2).

Point 2. Girls do not equal time and money. Going out with some girls can COST you either time, or money, or both but this is by no means a 100% equality. Hence the proof is doubly flawed.

Point 3. Similarly, time is by no means an equality with money. i can count time till the cows come home and will not add one cent to my bank account. My time is only worth what someone else is prepared to pay me for it – That figure currently standing at zero dollars, ergo equality not proven, therefore the proof is triply flawed.

Point 4. By reason of point 3 the third line is similarly unfounded in fact. Proof remains triply flawed.

Point 5. Fallacious assertion: it is not money that is evil. Money has no intrinsic propensity to perform either good or evil acts. The correct quote is the LOVE of money is the root of all evil. Hence the proof is quadruply flawed.

Point 6. While the conclusion would be mathematically true assuming the preceding line was in the least bit accurate we have conclusively demonstrated – it is, in fact,Β  a load of crock.

Which is a pity ‘cos it looked really funny.

What this proves beyond all reasonable doubt is:

People are as crap at producing perfectly rational logic and proofs as they are at making religion work flawlessly! if you want to throw one out you should throw both out as a way of producing reliable results while imperfect beings (such as humanity has proven itself so far to be) are (ab)using them. πŸ™‚

Advertisements

15 thoughts on “A Logical Proof

  1. Being a math major I started picking apart the “proof” at line 1 too. I was mentally preparing my rebuttal but then you included the rebuttal and robbed me of the opportunity!!

    So a preacher once said love is time and time is love. That sounded more biblical than the time is money cliche.

    Like

  2. Sorry for being a comment robber – i hate that personally πŸ™‚

    No, no – i ‘love’ that personally (phew!)

    Since Time is supposed to heal all wounds i guess the preacher’s version makes sense since Love does likewise! πŸ˜‰

    Or: Time = heals all wounds = Love

    Since love takes time and effort for us humans,

    (For humans): Love = Time and effort; or algebraically,
    Love – Time = effort, but, since love = time then:
    Love – love = effort, and therefore
    0 = effort, or effort required to love for humans should = Zero πŸ™‚

    How’s that for a proof?

    Like

  3. Mandy – Did you get down to point 3 without a headache? Did you like my use of ‘ergo’ there? πŸ˜‰

    Hov – true – a very ‘schoolboy’ proof and i should not have honoured it with the term ‘logical’ – even though to many people that is what their logic looks like in their reality (if they ever even tried to reach that sort of level of logical thinking expression!)

    i believe those who practice religion at it’s highest levels have sound and valid reasons for their faith and beliefs that many who practice religion do not quite ‘get’. Ditto for those who practice logic.

    It is true however, that those who practice logic and reason have, at the very base, belief and faith – things that are assumed and impossible to prove – just like Religions. The structure of rational thought might seem to make more sense to you because it is based upon strict, irrefutable conclusions derived from established and proven constructs, but the very lowest, basic foundations are as indefinable as is God.

    Like

  4. Crikey love, I only said it was a schoolboy error. πŸ™‚

    I agree that we humans do take things on faith and do use logic and reason. Each to varying degrees. There is no human that is able to abandon one or the other. Even the truly insane have a form of logic that fits their own view and the most analytical of scientists must take some things at an assumed value or doubt the record of his own findings.

    There are some methods that we use to test that our reasoning is accurate as you have ably demonstrated. I’m not sure if you ever get to play about with thought experiments at all but there is one where you must prove that your reason is accurate and logical by using only logic and reason. These are the only tools available after all to prove this point.

    Like

  5. Sorry about the above my dear Hov, but i did actually agree with your assertion πŸ™‚

    In order for me to entertain your suggestion however we need to agree upon the rules.

    Specifically:
    1. Accuracy. To what margin of error? πŸ™‚
    2. Logical. Am i ‘limited’ to any particular logic? i.e. Deductive only, Inductive? Mathematical? Predicate? or Modal? or am i allowed to attempt to form my own combinations of any or all of them.

    Who will be the final arbiter of the success of my attempt?

    Me? You? an independent person? a computer?

    Who is to say that merely because you or i cannot detect the illogic in my attempt that it is not in point of fact flawed?

    And finally (phew!) what constraints are to be placed upon the initial assumptions that my reason cannot otherwise prove or disprove that are necessary for me to consider the construct in the first place?

    ( i.e. How do we define concepts such as ‘True’ or ‘False’. What considerations have to be made concerning the use of language and specific words in the language (semantics) such that if i think a word had this meaning and you consider it has a different one where is agreement reached?)

    As an example of the futility of attempting such a thought experiment without such common points determined consider this one sentence attempt:

    “Everything i say and think is either true or false or neither true nor false and i am the ultimate arbiter of each case.”

    Hard to beat for logic and accuracy and anyone who does not agree with it is, simply put, wrong! – by reason of me saying so πŸ™‚

    <B

    Like

  6. Ha, if you want absolutes I suggest a career in pure mathematics. Everything else has a degree of wiggle room and a base in assumptions.

    I would say that with reason it does not matter which method you use as long as you are open about your methodology so that others can undertand inherent flaws and point out any mistakes and you are willing and able to explain the steps you took to reach your conclusions. Just as you did in the evil women example above.

    The thought experiment was the “Descartes’ Evil Demon”. It’s quote good fun to run through the experiment even though the proof ends up being an ontological argument. He doesn’t really cover the problem you describe. Cogito ergo Sum: I think, therefore I am is one of those problems of ego that you are so fond of. We can’t all be Zen Masters though.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s