this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2025
1224 points (95.9% liked)
196
17342 readers
532 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts require verification from the mods first
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes there is:
Only men like nothing.
Explanation:
"Only XYZ like ABC" is equivalent to: "Everyone who likes ABC is also an XYZ."
Since everybody likes at least something, there is no one who likes nothing. The statement: "Everyone who likes nothing is also a man" is true because the "Everyone who likes nothing" part results in 0 people. And it's true to say that everyone in a group of 0 people is a man. It's also true that everyone in a group of 0 people is not a man.
But other than vacuous truths, no sentence stating "Only man like XYZ" is true.
But only men like set theory, so…
This woman likes set theory because she was involved in a set theory workshop:
https://dmg.tuwien.ac.at/sandramueller/conferences/
But you're kind of right that it's not great that math is still a strongly male dominated field. There is not a single woman's name in the Wikipedia article for set theory, where I first tried to find a counterexample.
Also, you don't necessarily need set theory to arrive at vacuous truths. Logic is enough:
FALSE => [statement]
Still, I think vacuous truths are fun because they are meaningless. Especially because they have to be considered in math or else your carefully constructed proof becomes invalid.
I have no idea why you're being downvoted. Perhaps it's coming off as a bit rude to some?
It is!
That's the fun thing about vacous truths: They allow both a statement and its inverse to be true.