Comment on You heard me.
lemmyseikai@lemmy.world 11 months agoWhich is the layman’s terms of the proof… I don’t get what your goal is.
Is this a ridiculous formalized statement? Yes, of course it is. Is it a building block for learning to read mathematical works? Yes, of course it is. But that’s the point. We need to practice the trivial to build the scaffolding to tackle the exceptional.
I am not wont to draw conclusions with minimal evidence, but your post seems like you are a malicious reductionist that may be suffering from Dunning Kruger syndrome. I apologize in advance if I have miscategorized you based on this limited sample.
stebo02@sopuli.xyz 11 months ago
I just wanted to show you don’t need any mathematics to understand why this is true.
kogasa@programming.dev 11 months ago
The proof is exactly the same though.
stebo02@sopuli.xyz 11 months ago
never said it isn’t
lemmyseikai@lemmy.world 11 months ago
To confirm, you are asserting that the foundation for your answer (mathematical reasoning) does not require any mathematics to understand why it is true.
It’s very dangerous to take a reductionist approach and not be aware of the baked in assumptions you are using. For example, the terms even and odd (for this problem) are well defined as concepts for integers. Which means that your hand-wave statement is true as a result of definitions that were likely created to ensure this property held true.
The notion that “I don’t need math to understand why this is true” is like saying “I made an observation on a phenomenon and I don’t need science to know it’s true.” Which, as you are hopefully aware, is again reductionist and leads to a huge distrust of science from the science illiterate.
stebo02@sopuli.xyz 11 months ago
I don’t understand what you are trying to say. I just wanted to provide an easier way to reason why it is true, so that people who don’t do math as much as you do could also see the logic behind it. I don’t see how an easy to understand reasoning can be a bad thing?