I can tell you’re really proud of these replies, but I’m afraid they don’t actually make sense.
You were hoping to prove a logical implication (if P then Q), but you feel it was disproved since the premise didn’t happen. However, “not P” doesn’t actually prove anything about the implication.
Anyway, no one is really accomplishing anything constructive here. Good luck!
BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 11 months ago
Nope, guess you’re going to have to read it yourself to find out if they’re assuming instant, frictionless transport of goods.
brianary@lemmy.zip 11 months ago
If it’s not compelling enough for you to read it to support your position, why would I read it?
BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 11 months ago
My position was that you might actually learn something if you read the article, but I think you’ve provided sufficient evidence that I was wrong.
brianary@lemmy.zip 11 months ago
I can tell you’re really proud of these replies, but I’m afraid they don’t actually make sense.
You were hoping to prove a logical implication (if P then Q), but you feel it was disproved since the premise didn’t happen. However, “not P” doesn’t actually prove anything about the implication.
Anyway, no one is really accomplishing anything constructive here. Good luck!