1. Knowledge is power.
2. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

3. Be stupid

For some reason I found this to be funny . Anyhow, I now challenge the next poster to write/plagiarize an even funnier syllogism. As for rules, the only stipulation is that it must be logically valid .

1. God is love.
2. Love is blind.

God is blind.

hehehe

Nice little thread going here, however I’m not convinced by the validity of the first syllogism. Firstly it is an enthymeme, therefore missing out hidden premises. In full I would probably write it out:

P1. Knowledge is power
P2. Power corrupts
P3. Absolute power corrupts absolutely
C1. Be stupid

The definition of a logically valid argument is one which it is impossible for the premises to all be true and the conclusion false. However, in this case I don’t see why the conclusion is necessarily true. An evilly minded person could easy say the conclusion was C1. Be knowledgeable. Logicians seem to argue about value judgement statements and whether they can be said to be logical at all.

Here’s my one:

P1. The girl in the photograph is my grandmother
P2. The girl in the photograph is six years old
C1. My grandmother is six years old

• ben

Jedi Pocky- Good one!

Ben, you sneaky devil! I must now defend the validity of my statement!

You’re correct, my syllogism is an enthymene, however, the hidden premise is not only “power corrupts.” Here it is in it’s entirety:

1. Knowledge is power
2. Power corrupts
3. absolute power corrupts absolutely
4. Absolute corruption is unwanted

5. Be stupid

This statement is valid, but cannot be proven sound, as it is a value statment. To accept that corruption is unwanted is a subjective statement, which cannot really be proven. But, as far as validity is concerned, the syllogism works. There are other hidden premises, or values, as well- such as that the state of being stupid is more desirable than the state of corruption. I just figured a more succint version would be funnier.

And as for your syllogism, Ben, it too contains a hidden premise . It should read:

1. The girl in the photograph is my grandmother
2. The girl in the photograph is six years old
3. The photograph is a recent picture

4. My grandmother is six years old

But a good sllyogism nonetheless.

1. You are what you eat
2. My room mate just ate a fruitcake

3. My room mate is a fruitcake

Hey, I’m just winging it.

around an atom is mostly empty space ( for the electrons to zip about)
this chair is made of atoms

im sitting on mostly empty space

Those who can, do.
Those who cant, teach.
Those who teach can’t do.

I love these! Keepem coming!

“The lips of wisdom are closed, except to the ears of the understanding”
Therefore,
The lips of wisdom consume the ears of the understanding.

• Regarding the first post, it might have been more appropriate to end with ‘knowledge corrupts,’ only because, ‘be stupid’ makes the ultimate assumption that all people fear corruption. A reality, which is often not the case.

dunno if this counts, but hey, do you really care?!

x+y=1
x=-y
x squared =y squared
x squared - y squared = 0
(x+y)(x-y) = 0
x-y=0
x=y
when x=0, y=1?

If x = -y then (x+y) = 0

Dividing by (x+y) in line 6 is the equivalent of dividing by 0 which is undefined giving the the odd result.

Edit: Having re-read it, the first two equations have no real solutions anyway.

nice try

• ben

That’s cause he missed the 1 out. But when its written right its a standard example of how to fool those with da bad maths.

sorry, fucked that up, i think its meant to be :

A) x=y
=> x squared =y squared
=> x sqaured - y squared = 0
=> (x-y)(x+y)=0

B) x=y
=> x-y=0
=> (x-y)squared=0
=> (x-y)(x-y)=0

A=B (obviously)
=> (x-y)(x+y) = (x-y)(x+y)
=> (x+y)=(x-y)

when x=1, y=1
=> (1+1) = (1-1)
2=0

There is a better way of basically doing the same one that makes 1=2, and is less obvious but i can’t remember it at the mo!