Editing 816: Applied Math

[[Megan]] uses a proof to invalidate logic itself. (Of course, this means that her proof paradoxically renders itself meaningless. If logic has been disproven, her proof has no value.) According to the logic symbols [[File:contradiction.png]] at the bottom of the proof, she has proved that "the proposition (statement) is true and the proposition is false," i.e. "something is both true and false." (Specifically, ∴ means "therefore", ''P'' represents that a proposition is true, ∧ stands for "and", and an overbar negates a proposition (so ''<span style="text-decoration: overline">P</span>'' represents that a proposition is false) The negate symbol, ¬, is also used for this purpose when placed in front of a symbol<!--letter? symbol?-->). If someone were to prove this, it would indeed derail the very foundation of logic and result in the {{w|principle of explosion}}, which was referenced in [[704: Principle of Explosion|a previous comic]].

[[Megan]] uses a proof to invalidate logic itself. (Of course, this means that her proof paradoxically renders itself meaningless. If logic has been disproven, her proof has no value.) According to the logic symbols [[File:contradiction.png]] at the bottom of the proof, she has proved that "the proposition (statement) is true and the proposition is false," i.e. "something is both true and false." (Specifically, ∴ means "therefore", ''P'' represents that a proposition is true, ∧ stands for "and", and an overbar negates a proposition (so ''<span style="text-decoration: overline">P</span>'' represents that a proposition is false) The negate symbol, ¬, is also used for this purpose when placed in front of a symbol<!--letter? symbol?-->). If someone were to prove this, it would indeed derail the very foundation of logic and result in the {{w|principle of explosion}}, which was referenced in [[704: Principle of Explosion|a previous comic]].

The title text is the reply from Dr. Knuth, in which he uses Megan's logic-disproving proof against her by claiming — with no logical explanation — that the amount of money she is in fact due as a reward is only 98 cents. In logic, from a contradiction (such as "P∧<span style="text-decoration: overline">P</span>") can be inferred any statement, including that $3,372,564.48 = $0.98. He does this presumably to a) get out of paying her over three million dollars, b) demonstrate his contempt for or disbelief in her proof, and/or c) to show her, rather passive-aggressively, that she herself is not exempt from any ill effects resulting from her proof.  If logic is proved to be false, then all mathematics are proved false and 3,372,564.48 = 0.98. Dr. Knuth could have also given her nothing, as 0 would equal 0.98 which would equal 3,372,564.48.

The title text is the reply from Dr. Knuth, in which he uses Megan's logic-disproving proof against her by claiming — with no logical explanation — that the amount of money she is in fact due as a reward is only 98 cents. In logic, from a contradiction (such as "P∧<span style="text-decoration: overline">P</span>") can be inferred any statement, including that $3,372,564.48 = $0.98. He does this presumably to a) get out of paying her over three million dollars, b) demonstrate his contempt for or disbelief in her proof, and/or c) to show her, rather passive-aggressively, that she herself is not exempt from any ill effects resulting from her proof.  If logic is proved to be false, then all mathematics are proved false and 3,372,564.48 = 0.98. Dr. Knuth could have also given her nothing, as 0 would equal 0.98 which would equal 3,372,564.48.