Timeline for Why is it wrong to answer a question with a tautology? Isn't "2+2" correct when answering 'What is "2+2"'?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 13, 2020 at 21:34 | comment | added | vectory | It is by the way incomprehensible why this answer was accepted while OP was clearly asking about reference to prior research (which should in effect exclude own research, for lack of a better word). The added insult "...is obviously..." is obviously not up to standards either. Although, intuition seems to be a bare necessity for communication, I think a more intuitive answer is possible. | |
| Nov 13, 2020 at 21:31 | comment | added | vectory | Hypothesis: This answer is false. Well is it? Prove: I might as well ask what is 4. The assumption is that 4 is the simplest term. But it is not. It is invariant over several representations, 2+2, or e.g. Roman IIII which is arguably more simple in the sense that it is homiconic, but it is not simpler to type. Corallary: There is no unique measure for simplicity in life. The simpelest answer would be nothing, inarguably, but that is not satisfying. Conclusion: The answer might be right, but it is resting on further unspoken assumptions, which is essentially what OP was asking about. | |
| Nov 12, 2020 at 18:00 | vote | accept | user107952 | ||
| Nov 11, 2020 at 0:06 | comment | added | supercat | Another issue is that a question "what is X, expressed in the simplest form" might well be X, but that would hardly be a tautology. For example, the simplest-form answer to "what is nine divided by six" might be "one and one half", but the simplest-form answer to "what is five divided by six" would be "five sixths". That X divided by six is X sixths may be a tautology, but the fact that the simplest form description of the answer is X sixths wouldn't be. | |
| Nov 10, 2020 at 9:52 | comment | added | Rushi | As an informal response in the context of informal math it's ok. Formally there are many ahems. Eg consider replacing in the question above "2+2" by "10 ** 10 **10" where ** denotes "raised to". More prosaically writing (ie "simplifying") Avogadro's number without scientific notation! A systematic response would need to use (something like) rewrite-systems or lambda-calculus. | |
| Nov 10, 2020 at 6:47 | history | answered | Bumble | CC BY-SA 4.0 |