More like: anons are virgins. Some anons are married though. Therefore not all anons are virgins or marriage != non-virginity. Still the majority of anons are virgins. Married anons are >>the exception that proves the rule.
Married anons are an invalid counterexample to the claim that anons are virgins.
1 month ago
Anonymous
All white people are evil and racist. > but what about X philantropist
Exception that proves the rule.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>ALL
Can you read? moron.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Remove the word all if you dislike it. My point still stands.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Therefore we must agree on a definition of what we're studying and compare observations from different frames of reference.
1 month ago
Anonymous
All white people are evil and racist. > but what about X philantropist
Exception that proves the rule.
It is applicable to statistical rules (i.e. trends). You would remark a chinese individual having all white hair due to albinism because they statistically are very likely to have black hair. The fact that this would be remarkable is the because it is an exception to the strong statistical trend.
More like: anons are virgins. Some anons are married though. Therefore not all anons are virgins or marriage != non-virginity. Still the majority of anons are virgins. Married anons are >>the exception that proves the rule.
Married anons are an invalid counterexample to the claim that anons are virgins.
All white people are evil and racist. > but what about X philantropist
Exception that proves the rule.
This is not how it works. Here's a real example of an exception proving the rule:
You're looking for a spot to park your car. You see a sign that says "no parking". Therefore, you can deduce that, in places where there is no sign, parking is allowed. The fact that an explicit exception was made proves the implicit existence of the general rule that it is an exception to.
>the exception that proves the rule
Valid reasoning by B if A tries to disprove a deduction from a bigger number of observations with a deduction from a smaller number of observations.
>you can't prove a negative
Valid reasoning by B if A tries to disprove X by fallaciously claiming a lack of observation of X. After all: there's a chance that X might be observed somewhere sometime in the future so it's a matter of probability rather than absolute presence/absence.
models are not complete but are useful, they are less wrong as compared to stupid shit. they don't perfectly represent reality as they are not complete, but partially describing reality works better than having no fricking clue.
>models are not complete but are useful
What the frick do you mean not complete? > they don't perfectly represent reality
They can perfectly represent the part of reality that you're studying. In what fricking sense is the model wrong?
The only case I found in which it makes any sense, is that if you ever meet an exception, you may ask him "you're russian and you don't drink? I heard all russians drink booze. Is it true?" and if he tells "yes" then maybe that rule is not that wrong, but his existence alone may indicate that "not exactly"
example?
There are none, because that's a stupid concept
all primes are odd
proof: 2 is even
More like: anons are virgins. Some anons are married though. Therefore not all anons are virgins or marriage != non-virginity. Still the majority of anons are virgins. Married anons are
>>the exception that proves the rule.
Married anons are an invalid counterexample to the claim that anons are virgins.
All white people are evil and racist.
> but what about X philantropist
Exception that proves the rule.
>ALL
Can you read? moron.
Remove the word all if you dislike it. My point still stands.
Therefore we must agree on a definition of what we're studying and compare observations from different frames of reference.
It's not PROOF though
It is applicable to statistical rules (i.e. trends). You would remark a chinese individual having all white hair due to albinism because they statistically are very likely to have black hair. The fact that this would be remarkable is the because it is an exception to the strong statistical trend.
This is not how it works. Here's a real example of an exception proving the rule:
You're looking for a spot to park your car. You see a sign that says "no parking". Therefore, you can deduce that, in places where there is no sign, parking is allowed. The fact that an explicit exception was made proves the implicit existence of the general rule that it is an exception to.
What if the sign says "No Killing"
Dear me, it seems your logic has failed *tips fedora*
Nothing can be its own opposite which is why the value of nothing, 0, is allowed to be its own opposite number -0=0.
the opposite of nothing is +-infinity
>no "complex infinities"
I wouldnt even know what to do with it.
No, opposites numbers are defined through the additive inverse 1/-1, 2/-2, etc.
> you can't prove a negative
Both of these are true. Are you moronic?
>the exception that proves the rule
Valid reasoning by B if A tries to disprove a deduction from a bigger number of observations with a deduction from a smaller number of observations.
>you can't prove a negative
Valid reasoning by B if A tries to disprove X by fallaciously claiming a lack of observation of X. After all: there's a chance that X might be observed somewhere sometime in the future so it's a matter of probability rather than absolute presence/absence.
> all models are wrong, but some are useful
models are not complete but are useful, they are less wrong as compared to stupid shit. they don't perfectly represent reality as they are not complete, but partially describing reality works better than having no fricking clue.
>models are not complete but are useful
What the frick do you mean not complete?
> they don't perfectly represent reality
They can perfectly represent the part of reality that you're studying. In what fricking sense is the model wrong?
>What the frick do you mean not complete?
you brainlet
Yes.
If you had two magnets without markings, you could deduce similar poles via perfect counter-balance, only possible in "Theory".
>why dont you connect the two
Not posssible, figure it out.
> Both of these are true. Are you moronic?
You are stylish.
And iconic.
Meds, NOW
On it.
Thanks, I sometimes forget to take care of myself, I just get so caught up is helping the poor*cough-humble-brag-cough*.
Why are off-topic spam like this allowed on IQfy? They spam every thread with nonsense day in and day out.
gaypot
>epistemological a priory platonic qualia
>dualism
>dichotomy
>dimorphisn
>dihydrogenmonoxide
>opposites
>inverse
Future humans will have extreme female biased size dimorphism
Yo I've been looking for you to dump porn for months now, assuming you're the same poster
You know it senpai. I've been very busy for like a year now and occupying my free time with other things.
>appeal to authority
>0.9999...=1
>actually... did you know that [math]0.999ne 1[/math] in the hyperreals?
0.999... is not real in nature so it's completely useless to talk about. Make up whatever "facts" you want about it.
wym? 1 does exist in nature
moron thread
>only the natural numbers between 1 and 10^80 can be considered since that's what appears in nature
Yes? The rest is fantasy, might as well talk about lord of the rings or your favorite anime or something.
>It's real if I can imagine it!
Nope
The only case I found in which it makes any sense, is that if you ever meet an exception, you may ask him "you're russian and you don't drink? I heard all russians drink booze. Is it true?" and if he tells "yes" then maybe that rule is not that wrong, but his existence alone may indicate that "not exactly"
>The OP that proves OP is a gay i.e. most OPs on sci bar St. Barkon