Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

All People in Canada are the Same Age (1997)

math.toronto.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 102 posts

Re: All People in Canada are the Same Age (1997)

#21

Post by thaumasiotes »

nathanwh wrote: post #14
dlkf wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why you're getting downvoted, afaict 9 is the problem.

TFA will inform you of this though, it's intended to be a game of reasoning. Posting the answer is spoiling the fun for people who read the comments first

> it's intended to be a game of reasoning. Posting the answer is spoiling the fun for people who read the comments

This is a very common example in math classes, though in my experience usually presented as a proof that "all horses are the same color".

Re: All People in Canada are the Same Age (1997)

#22

Post by [deleted] »

vages wrote: post #17
nathanwh wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TFA will inform you of this though, it's intended to be a game of reasoning. Posting the answer is spoiling the fun for people who read the comments first

Why isn't there a mechanism for hiding spoilers in your comments? I came to the comments to check whether my guess was right (it wasn't), and I'm very glad for the spoiler.

[deleted]

Re: All People in Canada are the Same Age (1997)

#24

Post by amalcon »

dfee wrote: post #13

In 2003, I remember studying fallacies in English class. I literally had an outbreak of laughter during an exercise where the prompt was: “vote for me or admit you’re racist”. It seemed so ridiculous to teenage me that such a thing could be said. In 2020 it has been said. I’m no longer falling out of my seat laughing.

You must not have been paying attention at the time. I was literally told "Vote for X or you are a traitor", which is the same fallacy, in 2003.

Re: All People in Canada are the Same Age (1997)

#25

Post by kriskrunch »

dfee wrote: post #13

In 2003, I remember studying fallacies in English class. I literally had an outbreak of laughter during an exercise where the prompt was: “vote for me or admit you’re racist”. It seemed so ridiculous to teenage me that such a thing could be said. In 2020 it has been said. I’m no longer falling out of my seat laughing.

I know this as the Kafka trap fallacy.

"A Kafka trap is a fallacy where if someone denies being x it is taken as evidence that the person is x since someone who is x would deny being x. The name is derived from the novel The Trial by the Austrian writer Franz Kafka."

Source: https://debate.fandom.com/wiki/Kafka_Trap

Re: All People in Canada are the Same Age (1997)

#26

Post by cf-d-ycom »

So this article shows that you can infer S(n+1) from S(n) for n > 1, and a base case of S(1) is true.

However, you can't infer S(2) is true from assuming S(1) is true in the same way, ie. a group of 2, could be represented as two groups of S(1) and S(1). You can't claim these two S(1) groups share the same age.

This means that the base case and the inductive step are not connected, which means the proof is invalid.

Re: All People in Canada are the Same Age (1997)

#27

Post by andrepd »

dfee wrote: post #13

In 2003, I remember studying fallacies in English class. I literally had an outbreak of laughter during an exercise where the prompt was: “vote for me or admit you’re racist”. It seemed so ridiculous to teenage me that such a thing could be said. In 2020 it has been said. I’m no longer falling out of my seat laughing.

Who has said it?

Re: All People in Canada are the Same Age (1997)

#28

Post by MereInterest »

dfee wrote: post #13

In 2003, I remember studying fallacies in English class. I literally had an outbreak of laughter during an exercise where the prompt was: “vote for me or admit you’re racist”. It seemed so ridiculous to teenage me that such a thing could be said. In 2020 it has been said. I’m no longer falling out of my seat laughing.

One part of mathematics that I rather like is figuring out how to phrase a statement as precisely as possible. (For me, this is also what differentiates good philosophy from bad philosophy.) I've been struggling with the best way to interpret the 2016 election results, especially with the 2020 election coming up. The most precise way to phrase it is as follows:

For each person who voted for Trump in 2016, at least one of the following statements is true. (A) The person was uninformed as to Trump's character. (B) The person was actively being misinformed as to Trump's character, in such a way that correct information was not believed. (C) The person did not believe that racism was a disqualifying factor for office.

Whether this statement reduces to the "vote for X or admit to being racist" depends on several additional statements that I don't think can be entirely stated. First, it asserts that (A) is false, that the amount of media coverage in an election is enough that no voters are uninformed. Second, it asserts that (B) is false, that there was no active misinformation being spread during the 2016 election. Given what we know now, (B) is most certainly true in some cases. Third, it asserts that (C) is equivalent to a person being racist, which is a valid position, but one that is harder to discuss without getting into the nuances of systemic racism.

Re: All People in Canada are the Same Age (1997)

#29

Post by zepto »

MereInterest wrote: post #28
dfee wrote: post #13

In 2003, I remember studying fallacies in English class. I literally had an outbreak of laughter during an exercise where the prompt was: “vote for me or admit you’re racist”. It seemed so ridiculous to teenage me that such a thing could be said. In 2020 it has been said. I’m no longer falling out of my seat laughing.

One part of mathematics that I rather like is figuring out how to phrase a statement as precisely as possible. (For me, this is also what differentiates good philosophy from bad philosophy.) I've been struggling with the best way to interpret the 2016 election results, especially with the 2020 election coming up. The most precise way to phrase it is as follows: For each person who voted for Trump in 2016, at least on…

The primary fallacy is that racism is a Boolean value of some sort.

Re: All People in Canada are the Same Age (1997)

#30

Post by cheez »

cf-d-ycom wrote: post #26

So this article shows that you can infer S(n+1) from S(n) for n > 1, and a base case of S(1) is true. However, you can't infer S(2) is true from assuming S(1) is true in the same way, ie. a group of 2, could be represented as two groups of S(1) and S(1). You can't claim these two S(1) groups share the same age. This means that the base case and the inductive step are not connected, which means the proof is invalid.

Not exactly, it was saying that you assumed S(2) implicitly which is wrong.
Post reply on HN