cf-d-ycom

7 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by cf-d-ycom 4y ago

   I'd like to be proven wrong on this point, but it feels to me that this trend is two things, individuals and companies reaping the benefits of technological improvements towards efficiency, and _ALSO_ the revealing redundancy of more a
2. 2.▲
   by cf-d-ycom 4y ago

   Is not also the "idea of a social construct" a social construct? And by extension is also arbitrary and meaningless? And surely then every idea of any category is dissolved as meaningless and arbitrary, and then reason itself is a
3. 3.▲
   by cf-d-ycom 6y ago

   Also, would there not be value in the words from someone who had experience with moral corruption? If I wanted to hear what the world was like outside the city walls, I'd expect that person to have gone outside the city walls before.
4. 4.▲
   by cf-d-ycom 6y ago

   What if the advice that would really help someone just happens to be from people who are all below this person's purity test bar?
5. 5.▲
   by cf-d-ycom 6y ago

   And perhaps a slightly more liberal approach would be that racism applies to ideas/worldviews/modes of communication rather than baked into people. There is research to indicate people respond to visual cues as an indicator of in-
6. 6.▲
   by cf-d-ycom 6y ago

   I believe so yeh.
7. 7.▲
   by cf-d-ycom 6y ago

   So the base case that they prove is S(1). And the inductive step is to show: S(1) ->(implies) S(2) -> S(3) -> S(4) -> .... Or to write it more succinctly, that S(n) -> S(n + 1) assuming S(n) is true. In this particular proble
8. 8.▲
   by cf-d-ycom 6y ago

   Yeh, that makes more sense.
9. 9.▲
   by cf-d-ycom 6y ago

   Potentially. However, I believe the inductive step is correct. I could be wrong though. ie. If you assume S(2) is true, lets prove S(3), consider a set of 3 people, {a, b, c}. apply S(2) to {a, b} are therefore the same age, apply S(2)_ to
10. 10.▲
    by cf-d-ycom 6y ago

    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 gr