Solution and Problem Paradox

ColorWolf

Diabloii.Net Member
Solution and Problem Paradox

Ok, anyone remember what Kennedy said "if you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem."

Well, in math class, we know about contrapositive proof, that:

A implies B
and
Not(B) implies Not(A)

are logically equivalent.

So does that means "if you are not part of the problem, then you are part of the solution?"

So therefore, Kennedy told us to stay out of trouble whenever possible???!!!
 

publius

Diabloii.Net Member
Nope, the converse isn't always true.

That is, "if A then B" implies "if not B then not A." It does not always mean "if B then A."
 

tarnok

Diabloii.Net Member
ColorWolf said:
So does that means "if you are not part of the problem, then you are part of the solution?"
Assuming Kennedy's original statement is true, this is also true.

ColorWolf said:
So therefore, Kennedy told us to stay out of trouble whenever possible???!!!
Eh? I'm not sure I follow.
 

SuggestiveName

Diabloii.Net Member
The problem is that kenndy's original statement doesn't logically follow, so the contrapositive won't necessarily follow either. It was an inspirational statement not a fact based rule.
 

tarnok

Diabloii.Net Member
SuggestiveName said:
The problem is that kenndy's original statement doesn't logically follow, so the contrapositive won't necessarily follow either. It was an inspirational statement not a fact based rule.
That's irrelevant. If we assume that the original statement was true then the second statement follows logically from the first. The origin of our premises is irrelevant to whether or not our conclusion follows logically from the premises.

Or to put it another way, the two statements are logically equivalent. Whether or not they have any bearing on the real world is outside the scope of the problem.
 

SuggestiveName

Diabloii.Net Member
tarnok said:
Or to put it another way, the two statements are logically equivalent. Whether or not they have any bearing on the real world is outside the scope of the problem.
I wasn't questioning if the statements were logically equivilent, of course they are. I've made enough truth tables in my time to know that.

I thought that the entire question of the thread was whether the contrapositive applied to the real world...
 

Stevinator

Diabloii.Net Member
Sooo.......this was a completely pointless thread?

i imagine as i type this someone is hijacking.

I'm guessing it's going to be about their favorite flavor of bread

mine's sourdough...mmmHmmm

anyway, so if that's what kennedy was saying can you make something interesting out of that? or are we supposed to throw something else in ther and create amusing logical deductions?
 

220683

Diabloii.Net Member
tarnok said:
That's irrelevant. If we assume that the original statement was true then the second statement follows logically from the first. The origin of our premises is irrelevant to whether or not our conclusion follows logically from the premises.

Or to put it another way, the two statements are logically equivalent. Whether or not they have any bearing on the real world is outside the scope of the problem.
No, it is absoultely relevant. The original post not only asked about the logical equivalence, he's also trying to draw a conclusion. If you were to answer his questions truthfully, then you would have to consider what Kennedy said.
 

ColorWolf

Diabloii.Net Member
Actually i was just posting this as kinda a brain teaser type of question (more of a joke than a serious debate but guess people are not nerdy enough to enjoy it :( )...

apparently Kennedy was meant to inspire us to take action, or we will be the problem itself. But why does it also logically equivalent to telling us to not take action and problem will solve itself?
 

Stevinator

Diabloii.Net Member
ColorWolf said:
Actually i was just posting this as kinda a brain teaser type of question (more of a joke than a serious debate but guess people are not nerdy enough to enjoy it :( )...

apparently Kennedy was meant to inspire us to take action, or we will be the problem itself. But why does it also logically equivalent to telling us to not take action and problem will solve itself?
oh i get it. um, cool. *runs back to last thread*
 
Top