▲ 144 ▼ Everyone in Japan will be called Sato by 2531 unless marriage law changed, says professor (www.theguardian.com) submitted 2 years ago by RandAlThor@lemmy.ca to c/world@lemmy.world 29 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Since there are no people, no one is not called Sato, and therefore every person is called Sato. Uh... No? 🤨 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) ∀P∈{X | X lives in Japan} : P is named Sato using De Morgan's negation rule this is equivalent to ⇔ ∄ P ∈{X | X lives in Japan} : P is not named Sato Since {X | X lives in Japan} = ∅ is the empty set, such a person P can by definition not exist. Which means, the first statement is true. If no person lives in Japan, that means every person living in Japan is named Sato. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Your proof is vacuous and you should feel vacuous! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 years ago very much so permalink fedilink source parent
[–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) ∀P∈{X | X lives in Japan} : P is named Sato using De Morgan's negation rule this is equivalent to ⇔ ∄ P ∈{X | X lives in Japan} : P is not named Sato Since {X | X lives in Japan} = ∅ is the empty set, such a person P can by definition not exist. Which means, the first statement is true. If no person lives in Japan, that means every person living in Japan is named Sato. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Your proof is vacuous and you should feel vacuous! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 years ago very much so permalink fedilink source parent
[–] grue@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Your proof is vacuous and you should feel vacuous! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 years ago very much so permalink fedilink source parent