4 ms·
>If someone tells you "the longer a distance is, the more time it takes to walk it", that is exactly the same as "the shorter a distance is, the less time it ta
by 867-5309 4y ago
>If someone tells you "the longer a distance is, the more time it takes to walk it", that is exactly the same as "the shorter a distance is, the less time it takes to walk it"; there's no logical leap there.
that's comparing A->B with A->B. comparing A->B with B->A would yield "the less time a distance takes to walk, the shorter that distance must be"
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- thaumasiotes 4y ago> that's comparing A->B with A->B Yes, that's the point. feral (your parent comment) has accurately observed that Etheryte (your grandparent comment) has mislabeled A->B as B->A. But feral is completely correct that "the more time something has already been around, the longer its future expected lifespan is" is exactly the same claim as "the less time something has already been around, the shorter its future expected lifespan is". Etheryte is making a pretty bizarre error; he seems to be under the impression that "a < b" is the opposite of "b > a".