#pure logic

[the-ephemeral-ethereal]

Pure logic is not enough to tackle the problems of existence.

from In Search of Lost Time, Book 3: The Guermantes Way by Marcel Proust

[recovering-redditor]

I have a question for you:

Who do you think I, the sender of this anon, am?

Hmmmm…

We’re going to guess this one based on pure logic, then ignore that logic based on a hunch.

Going on who generally sends me these, on statistics I could name you Tica. But that doesn’t quite ring true… I don’t think Tica would mess with the font. Why? Pure instinct.

Who else would it be, you may ask, dear reader? I only one of my other mutuals who’s sent me an anon, and they totally would mess with the font. Have they in the past? Irrelevant, shut up.

Facts are in, and I name thee…

@waspsinyouryard

[roisnoir]

the jellyfish is too big, but i can live with it until i find something better

the kit is literally one of the first kits i bookmarked a couple of years ago - i like it very much as is, but i never do a kit unaltered, and i'm not happy with how the balloon that was supposed to be over the houses came out. Obviously, this means that I needed to turn it into some sort of eldritch horror/far side-esque reference.

[coffeebanana]

Sorry if some of these overlap a little/if I left out something obvious kajbdsjkd I tried my best haha. And that's why there's an "other" option!

[wolfythewitch]

My life experience and fucked up relationship with religion has given me a really weird perspective on blasphemy I think

[wasyago]

so, would you?

nothing important under the cut, you don't need to look haha

[sabotourist]

welcome to the church of delta there's no escape

Once again I'd DIE FOR DELTA

LITERALLY rip me open and murder me for delta

[wisteriagoesvroom]

all the PR training in the world could never beat the feral gremlin racerboy outta this man

[irregularjohnnywiggins]

In honour of William Russell's passing, here's one of those moments that I constantly come back to, time and again: That time Ian, without explicit words (because in 1963 no explicit words were needed) tells you exactly what he was doing 20 years before the episode's airing, and in so doing becomes one of the first people to actually challenge the Doctor to improve his morals:

[itsgonnabmay]

Broke: bill and ford fucked

Woke: bill and ford were too emotionally repressed and bad at communicating to realize they wanted to fuck

Bespoke: fiddleford is absolutely convinced they fucked but really they were just blushing and briefly locking eyes/eye over interdimensional chess and pining uselessly for each other like a pair of lesbian sheep

[cryptidclaw]

One of my biggest pet peeves is when ppl write characters texting/ sending notes to eachother and IN WRITING they get cut off??? Like for example

Character 1: Hi! How ware you toda-

Character 2: OMG HIIIIIIIII!!!!

Like????? They r texting, their WRITTEN TEXTS cannot be cut off!!! The dash (-) should be used for verbal conversion when a character could actually be cut off!!!

How is character 1 being cut off??? If this is a text message character 2 would not have even seen the full message until AFTER it is sent!!! I'm going INSANEEEEEE

[simplydnp]

who's hand is in this picture?

A Mathematically Rigorous Proof That I Spent Too Long Writing

welcome to university math: dnp hand edition

(no, don't leave, you'll be fine i promise)

to begin, we need a statement to prove. we have two options:

- the hand is dan's hand

- the hand is phil's hand

now, for most proofs in university math, you are told a true statement, and you must show why it is true using logic rules, definitions, and theorems. but, we do not know which of these statements are true, so we have to find out.

to prove that a statement is true, we must show that it is always true for the situation presented. to show a statement is false, we must present a single instance where the statement is false (also known as a counter example).

a quick not scary math example:

definition: a prime number is only divisible by 1 and itself.

statement: all prime numbers are odd

(this is false, because 2 is a prime number and it is even. you don't even need to check if there's any others, all you need is one single case where it isn't true to disprove it)

so now that we have a little background on proofs and how to prove and disprove them, we go back to our two statements.

the thing with this situation is, one of them must be true (unless you're gung-ho on someone else holding dan's face while phil takes a picture on his phone of dan in his glasses, in which case, i applaud your commitment, but in actuality this proof will cover that option too)

the full statement we have is: dan is touching his face or phil is touching dan's face

now, because this is Real Life and we have a picture where a hand is touching dan's face, we know already that one of these options is true (as mentioned above) but! using symbolic logic you could also come to this conclusion.

this type of statement is an 'or' statement, and if you're curious, you can look into 'truth-tables' and see why, but at least one of the options must be true.

back to the proof at hand (bah-duhm-tss)

okay. now, proofs also must be 'general' in order to mean anything, really. these are statements of truth of the universe, not just for individuals. so, we will prove this generally.

we have 2 people involved, so individual 1 (dan, the owner of the face and potential face toucher) will be labelled as 'D' , and individual 2 (phil, the possible face toucher who does not own the face) will be labelled as 'P'. thus, this can be true for any such D and any such P.

so with our 'or' statement, in order to prove it, we pick one of the options and say that it is not true, and we have to show then that the other is true.

step 1: let's assume this is not P's hand. (assumption)

step 2: thus, it must be D's hand. (what we take from our assumption)

step 3: now, if it is D's hand, we look at what a hand on one's own face is capable of appearing like. (a definition or true fact about step 2)

the position in the given photo shows the hand with a thumb on the cheek, and a finger on the forehead. so, we find an example of a person with their fingers in the same position (or close to) and see if this supports our claim.

consider:

now, with this image, you can clearly see how the subject's right hand has the thumb on the temple and index finger on the top of their head, however, it is a close enough position for our case.

from the view of the camera, the closest finger to the camera is the edge of the pinkie. in fact, it will always be the closest finger to the camera in this position, assuming the subject has all fingers and no additional appendages.

step 4: we now compare this to our photo (we verify if this holds to our claim or contradicts it)

in our photo, the closest appendage to the camera is the edge of the thumb.

step 5: thus, it cannot be the case that D is touching their own face. (what the evidence says)

step 6: as we assumed it was not P's hand and have shown it cannot be D's hand, and as this is an 'or' statement both of these claims cannot be false, we can therefore conclude it must be P's hand. (our conclusion: re-stating the statement and assumptions and conclusion)

step 7: we verify that P is true (optional step but in beginner proofs you generally show why your case works)

to do this, i will show a picture of a person touching another's face, and compare it to our image.

consider:

now, this image is not exactly the same, similar to above. however, P's left thumb is on the cheek, with their index on D's temple. the closest appendage to the camera (if it were in a similar perspective as our original) would be the edge of the thumb.

comparing it to our original:

our comparison holds.

thus, we can conclude that the true claim in this statement is that P must be touching D's face, which, in particular means that:

phil is touching dan's face in the image

thank you for partaking in phannie mathematics. we now know. i am not sorry.

bonus:

phil has a hitchhikers thumb and dan doesn't so why was this necessary at all 🤡

[moonlit-orchid]

The interesting thing about Spock is that while he can lie through his teeth and outsmart anyone, he's also terrible at acting normal. If he's up to something, you will know.

It's just very interesting and even a little ironic, really. Spock, who prides himself on rationality and logic, tends to behave in a completely irrational, illogical manner. Although his plans themselves are based in logic, the way he carries them out is essentially bulldozing. He just does whatever. He literally bulldozes his way through his plans, outright crashing into people, and behaving in a very clear "Something is very wrong" manner. He doesn't explain to people what he's doing. He doesn't even try to behave normally. It's like all rational thought has left his mind, it seems he's acting on pure instincts.

Yet his plans are completely and totally 100% logical. In fact, perhaps that's why he's so careless with his behaviour when executing them- he knows they will work, so it doesn't matter if people realise if he's up to anything.

But at the same time, he seems erratic. Panicked. Confused. He lays brilliant plans, but he's so incredibly clumsy in their execution. Clumsy and chaotic, instead of silent and smooth like you'd expect him to be. Obviously, things still mostly go to plan, not exactly out of luck, but even still there is still that reliance on people acting in a predicted way that won't hinder him. His plans are brilliant, of course, and he knows exactly how to play the game, yet there's always this sort of impulsiveness in how he carries them out.

It's just so interesting to me. Jim Kirk is supposedly the irrational, emotional one, yet when he acts he behaves in a mostly rational manner, smooth, not clumsy (unless angry). Yet it's logical Spock who's clumsy and chaotic right when he needs to be the smoothest and calmest. He brings suspicion on himself when he's doing something he isn't supposed to do because he's so bad at acting like everything is normal, when he's actually in the best position to do anything he pleases without any suspicion on himself because of his position and the sheer faith everyone has in him. If he actually behaved normally when doing something he shouldn't, absolutely no one would question him. But he doesn't. He's clumsy. He's nervous. He resorts very quickly to physical reactions because he can easily overpower anyone instead of talking his way out of a situation.

It's just a very interesting thing I noticed.

[tyxaar]

There are two ways people commonly apply minecraft inventory logic when worldbuilding an actual setting for fanfic and stuff and both of them have hilarious implications.

1. The inventory is merely an abstract representation of peoples’ bags, pockets, etc and the stuff they have on them.

2. Everyone literally has a personal pocket dimension they can store things in at will that explodes into a pile of crap when they die.

[blueshadowdad]

Hi Blueberry Milkshake Aka Pure Vanilla's Daddy I just wanna say that how or when was Pure Vanilla was born

Also can hold the sweetheart please?

Prev

Next

[alecz-obssesionz]

|◆ MEET MY PV GIJINKA ◆|

+ SOME IMPORTANT CLOSE UPS

THK'S DESIGN HERE

◆ Took longer than expected, but THK variation and Grimm are on the way~ !