The answer to sophistry, the question about sophistry

In the case of the description of this problem, the horse cannot catch up with the snail, but the solution of the sophistry is to see the sophistry of his description. This question is described in scientific terms, and his essence is to describe a phenomenon that the horse is always behind the snail before catching up with the snail, and the problem suddenly becomes clear.

This sophistry is actually an infinite subdivision of the time period when the horse catches up with the snail, divided into infinite time periods, giving the illusion of infinite time and obscuring the details of his subdivision of time periods.

Anonymous is right.

The original version was that the tortoise competed with a Greek athlete, as if proposed by a sophist named Zeno.

I don't quite understand what lz means.

If the horse and the snail are running on a circular track, then"The horse catches up, the snail moves forward some distance, and the horse can only catch up but not overtake"Yes, it is established.

It's a philosophical question about time, and it doesn't seem to have anything to do with mathematics or anything like that. That is, as long as the snail sets off in advance, then it is always ahead of the horse in time.

Two objects, the same position, A moves in a certain direction for a period of time, B then also starts to move in the same direction, at this time A stops, then the position where A stops, will be the only one in this universe, it is determined by the two coordinates of time and space, unless it is in the same place at the same time and place, B will always lag behind A in time, even if B reaches the position where A stopped, the moment A stopped in this position has already passed, and will never be caught up or exceeded!

Pass by. It feels like it's a ** at all.

The two are not played under the same fair rules. The snail can move forward as best he can, and his runway is spatially arbitrary; But because the horse runs after the snail, the horse's track is the path that the snail is currently walking, which means that the end of the horse's track is always the snail.

Therefore, the snail, as the end point of the horse, will not be surpassed at all. It has nothing to do with time or speed.

In this sophistry, all the conditions are false, and the key is that the sophist treats the system as known by means of wordplay.

To understand in terms of mathematical approaches and limits!!

An example from a high school teacher! The snail's section time will get shorter and shorter, tend to a certain value, find the limit value of this time, and then the horse will surpass the snail after this limit time!

You don't seek the limit, just a one-sided understanding of the infinite approach, of course, you can't go beyond it!

As the old Chinese saying goes, "Take a wooden stick, take half of it a day, and everything is inexhaustible", the same way!

Humans have been thinking about infinite approaches and limits since a very early age.

Because it takes time for a snail to travel a distance, and what a horse is looking for is the snail's journey, and she also needs time to run through the snail, so the snail is always ahead.

Let the time t to catch up, the snail speed * t + the running distance = the horse speed * tt is the limit value, and the limit time for the horse to lag behind.

A simple problem that cannot even be called a limit, just as it is impossible to measure that infinitely approaching time all the time, objectively existing things operate according to objective laws and do not change according to man's subjective thoughts.

It will pass.

It is estimated that the snail ran for a while, and the horse chased it, and the snail ran again for the original half, and the horse chased again, and the snail ran for the second half of the time, and the horse kept chasing, and finally the snail kept running, and the horse kept chasing, and could never catch up.

In this case, the speed of the horse has been neglected, that is, the speed of the horse has been decreasing, and if the speed of the horse is prescribed, elementary school students can also do it.

In fact, it's just a matter of rules, when the track is specified in advance, then the snail loses, because you are talking about the snail constantly changing the runway, that is, the snail is both the rule-maker and the participant and even the referee of the race. This is extremely unfair, do you think it is possible for a horse to win such an unfair race?

Passing by. I don't know what you're talking about, what" the horse caught up, and the snail walked forward some distance again.

Horses can only catch up but not overtake.

Is philosophy so profound? Woooooooooooo

Haha, horses don't race against snails, I'm afraid only people can do it.

Man cannot catch up with his own thoughts.

The horse trampled the snail to death.

Sophistry: First, the concept is changed.

For example, if I'm talking about "human beings" and you think it's "yourself", the typical case is to generalize.

The second is to impose cause and effect.

You don't succeed because you're not an entrepreneur".

The third is that it cannot be pushed.

The negative premises are superimposed, and no positive conclusion can be deduced, unless the premise is specified.

You're not a doctor, you're not a mathematician, you can't deduce "you're a philosopher." Unless the premise is that you are a doctor, a mathematician, a philosopher.

Think big, think ahead, think deeply.

New and old, which is more important? You have both, you can use both, and it is important to know what scene to use them in.

When the body secretes more oxytocin, it will develop feelings of attachment to others.

Group A group is a group of people with the same psychology, and the group has the characteristics of blind self-confidence, fearlessness, low IQ, and easy impulsivity.

To lead the group, one is to assert, the second is to repeat assertions, and the third is to exaggerate emotions.

Sophistry and the fallacy of sophistry are two different concepts.

Sophistry is a debating technique, a method of deceiving and misleading the audience through clever debating and verbal techniques. The purpose of sophistry is to win the debate, not to discover and express the truth. The essence of sophistry is a deception by misleading the audience with some arguments that seem plausible on the surface.

The fallacy of sophistry is a wrong way of argumentation, a kind of deception and misleading purpose through wrong logical reasoning and inappropriate argumentation. The essence of sophistry is a logical error that deceives the audience through wrong reasoning and argumentation to achieve the purpose of deception.

To sum up, sophistry is a fraudulent act that misleads the audience through clever debating techniques and rhetorical techniques, whereas sophistry is a false way of argumenting that is deceitful and misleading through wrong logical reasoning and inappropriate ways of argumentation. The difference between the two is that sophistry is a means, while sophistry is a way of arguing about the wrong way of reasoning.

Sophistry is a method of leading others to accept a false conclusion by deceiving, misleading, distorting, exaggerating, or narrowing facts, logical loopholes, etc. The fallacy of sophistry, on the other hand, refers to the erroneous logic of sophistry, i.e., the belief that there must be a connection or causal relationship between certain things because they seem to have some kind of connection or causal relationship. The root of this erroneous logic lies in the fact that the inferences or conclusions lack the necessary evidence or arguments to support them, and are therefore not accepted by logical science.

For example: A person may use sophistry when promoting a certain product, such as misleading customers by exaggerating the benefits of the product or minimizing the product's flaws. At this point, if what he says does not have any real evidence or argument to support his claims, then he falls into the false logic of sophistry.

Because it is wrong to assume that these words are true just because he said them, and Lu Zhao does not ask whether there is really enough evidence to support them. We need to adopt a more rigorous and reasonable way of argumentation when expressing our own opinions, avoid the influence of wrong logic, and then better express our views and ideas.

The concepts sophistry and sophistry may be used interchangeably in some cases, but their meanings and purposes differ.

1.Sophistry: This is a debating technique that usually involves persuading an audience by distorting facts, confusing the public, etc.

The purpose of sophistry is to put the opponent in a difficult situation so that he can achieve his own ends. The use of sophistry is often based on deception and misdirection rather than on objective facts and logical reasoning.

2.The fallacy of sophistry: This concept is more concerned with the fallacy produced by sophistry. The fallacy of sophistry refers to the fact that in sophistry, due to erroneous reasoning, confusion or deliberate misdirection, the conclusions reached do not conform to the actual situation or contradict the known truth.

In conclusion, sophistry is an ancient debating technique that aims to win debates by deceiving and misleading; The fallacy of sophistry is the fallacy produced by sophistry, which is concerned with the logical errors and misleading that may occur in sophistry. Although these two concepts are related, they are different in practical application and meaning.

Crisp Debate and Travel Debate are both one of the debating techniques, and their differences are:

Brittle argumentation is a debating technique whose main purpose is to attack the opponent, and to achieve victory by attacking the opponent's arguments, personality, and motivations. Brittle argumentation focuses on taking the upper hand in an argument rather than supporting one's point of view through sound logic and evidence. Common methods of brittle argumentation include slander, threats, inducements, etc.

Argumentation is a debating technique that uses sound logic and evidence to support one's opinion. The purpose of the art of jostling is to prove one's point of view by providing facts and reasons, not to attack one's opponent. Traveling Debate focuses on demonstrating one's strength in the course of a Ho Song argument, rather than attacking an opponent to achieve victory.

Common techniques of traveling argument include citing authority, giving examples, making comparisons, etc.

In practice, we should avoid using brittle arguments, because attacking the opponent's arguments and personality can easily arouse the opponent's disgust, and often do not lead to real victory. Instead, we should use the art of traveling to support our own opinions with sound logic and evidence in order to win the approval of others. In our debates, we should focus on providing objective facts and reasons, rather than attacking our opponents or using unethical means.

In short, brittle argumentation and travel argumentation are two completely different debating techniques, and we should be good at using it in practice and avoid using it. A real victory can only be won if you back up your point of view with sound logic and evidence.

The difference between defences and arguments is that they differ in purpose and method. Dialectics emphasizes skill and skill, the goal of justifying is to win the debate, and the method is to persuade the opponent through various techniques and strategies, and even sometimes to exaggerate the facts or use unethical means to win. The argument emphasizes speculation and thinking, the purpose is to solve problems and exchange ideas, and the method is to reach consensus through rational thinking, analysis and argumentation.

In arguments, both parties should respect the other party's point of view, abide by the facts, control their emotions, and be willing to listen to the other party's point of view in order to achieve a better understanding and exchange of opinions. Therefore, both debate and argumentation have their own advantages and application scenarios, but in practice, we should advocate debate to promote the exchange of ideas and the achievement of consensus.