Logical paradoxes
- How? You have nothing to do? said my uncle Jim, then come with me to Allen's house. You can do a small walk while taking my beard.
- “Okay,” replied his uncle Joe, “the baby will come with us, right?”
That child was me, perhaps as he himself invented it. It's three months since I turned fifteen, but that can't be cited before my uncle Joe. I would simply say: Run to your bed, that horrible mucus! or something like this: Do I see that he has become able to release cubic equations? This kind of hateful outings are your favorite. Yesterday he asked me for an example of a statement like A. I, in view of the option, told him: all the guys love the departure rooms. On his face he didn't seem to like it much. However, this is not the issue I care about now: I was happy with the opportunity they gave me then to accompany them. I love the discourse of my uncles, especially when, as they say, they devote themselves to destroying logic. I can say without naked that it is not easy the skill and the hobby that demonstrate for it, lightning!
- That doesn't come from the observation I've made," said his uncle Jim. “I have not said it,” replied his uncle Joe, “is an example of Reductio ad Absurdum reasoning.
- “My smallest premise does not say that, together with us, we have to take the smallest one,” he said in a laugh.
Of this type is the behavior they adopt every time I am among them. Because for me it was not painful to mention that nickname of the "txikis"!
When soon we saw barbarism, my uncle Jim took up the idea that the only hope is, he said, Carris' presence; Brown is a big paw and Allen's hand is always vibrating since he had that fever.
- I told him six pence not. Keep your bets, an irreverent child! "What I'm saying is demonstrable," he replied, "I can show it logically, sir, it's not an imaginary fact. Prove it, make it that wonderful deduction — his uncle Jim replied in the notorious mockery. Aurerra! What do you expect? We are surprised! Suppose it is a working hypothesis – he quietly departed that his uncle Joe –© is not in the barber. And let's see where this hypothesis takes us. With it I will use the reasoning of the Reductio ab Absurdum. “Sure you’re going to do something like this,” his uncle Jim cut off. I have never seen a reasoning that you do not end up absurd. “Without heeding your narcotics,” Uncle Joe followed with a proud gesture, “I will continue with the deduction. If the Program is not published, you must accept: If there is no Allen, at least Brown will have to be, right? And where do you see him on that nice side,” replied his uncle Jim with an ironic melody. As I said before, I don't like Brown's hands, it's a very big paw. My patience, even one of the best in my revolutions... "He was saying his uncle Joe, but his uncle Jim cut him down. Reasons please! reasons! "But without morale!" Okay. But do you accept it or not? “Assuming there is no Evas, do you accept what Allen has to be?” “Of course Brown will have to be,” said his uncle Jim, “who would care otherwise?” Very well, so the protsia of this hypothetical enunciated by the absence of\} is "Allen ez dago" and "Browm dago apodosia". And this hypothetical statement hides all its strength while there is no Evas, isn't it? Yes, I think so. And what happens then? said his uncle Jim. Come on well. As you well know, the veracity of a hypothetical statement Transparent Mirror of Logic (with what I mean: acceptability as logical inference) has nothing to do with the value of the truth of your protasia, but it can even be said, if possible does not give you any additional strength. For example, "if you came from here to London in five minutes, people would be very surprised..."the meaning and truthfulness of the hypothetical statement will not change anything" If you arrived in five minutes, people would be very surprised..." in five minutes, even if it is not possible... It is true. “I can’t,” his uncle Jim cut off. Let's go on. We still need another hypothetical statement. What did he tell me yesterday about Allen? You also know that: since that fever passed it never leaves home, it gets very nervous and that's why it always goes with Brown. Why do you ask me? Friend in the end. You will still have to wait a bit. So you are willing to accept the veracity of the statement "If there is no Allen then nor Brown," right? I think so, of course... said his uncle Jim, who could no longer hide the nervousness. I have finished. I am the winner. Listen. Supposing the statement "A is not" we have deduced the following two: "If Allen is not then Brown" and "if Allen is not then Brown is", but they are contradictory, it is not possible that the two coincide! How can the two not occur together? his uncle Jim backed down. How is it not possible? “Uncle Joe said that from the eyes farre.” How will the same prosthesis demonstrate two contradictory nicknames? Please Jim! Will you not deny that "Brown is" and "Brown is not" apodosis that are not contradictory? You have never been very reasonable, but so much... Yes, of course, I'll have to accept it," said his uncle Jim more than he said. “Well, and now the last blow,” said his uncle Joe as he hit the other hand. If it does not exist, then, on the one hand, these two hypothetical statements are both correct and on the other, contradictory. And we know, at least those who have their heads on their shoulders, that this is impossible. Wonderful! This opens a single door: The "Eves" are wrong and therefore the "Streams" are accepted correctly. From all the strength of logic I can say that in that barbershop that is in front of the eyes is the Kv. Discover a fascinating Reductio ad Absurdum. What about Jim? The pale face is not the same. Are you okay?...
- Yes, yes, ...but...
Without saying a word, and I kept my ears wide open. I was crazy listening to his speech and discovering that they were forgotten about me. Don't think the discussion ended like this, soon after his uncle Jim reformed and warmed up the speech.
I will not tell you what happened from now on. After all, my uncles are right and I am a child many times. That is why I think you also want to participate in this game. Finish your story and send me your little story. I'm looking forward to seeing what really happened!
My right is:
Charles Lutwidge Dogson P.K. 364 20080 DONOSTIA
Zu idazle
Zientzia aldizkaria
