The fourth time to solicit answers to the surrounding conjectures .

There are souls in the world, and that should be fine.

First of all, you have to figure it out"Conjecture"Meaning!

Different nationalities, different beliefs, different social systems, different people!

It leads to a different standard of value evaluation!

It's impossible to oppose or accept both!

Surrounding conjecture"The establishment was made up of"Surrounding conjecture"The basic content --- determined by whether there is one or more things in the field of social science that are acceptable to all people in the world, or at least not opposed. In other words, humanity today faces the question of whether we have the ability to find the same, or diverse, commonalities for all people in the world in the field of social sciences.

Hehe, there is also verification and falsification. Either way, it's a scientific spirit, and I support it.

Social Sciences.

The general equivalent, which is currently accepted by the people of the whole world, at least not against.

Socializing with the same kind is what every person in society yearns for, at least not against.

I don't think it exists!

There is a difference between man and man, and even twin brothers will not accept exactly the same thing.

If we think that everything that everyone on the earth accepts is a set, then the question asked by the landlord is equivalent to finding the intersection of these sets, and I think this intersection must be an empty set.

My answer is no:

1. The hierarchy of needs such as love, respect, social relationships, and self-realization is built on the level of survival. When the level of survival cannot be reached, the vast majority of people just think about how to survive. This world is not so rich, there are still many people who are just kept within the scope of the survival level and below, and the situation of eating babies is the best refutation of loving and being loved.

One example is enough to prove that it doesn't hold up. Therefore, it is impossible to find the scope of this need beyond the level of survival.

2. People can give up the level of survival when they experience the peak experience or reach the level of self-realization. The martyrs, Boya Shuqi, are good examples. So the answer is also outside the level of survival.

3.I don't know if the landlord can find out Maslow's hierarchy of needs, peak experience, and needs outside Maxwell's XY theory.

If I really want to say that there is, I am afraid that I will accept the fate of my own death. But the dead are not the people who are within the scope of the landlord's discussion.

Something that is acceptable to all and necessary is death. It is the most authentic and the fairest.

No one in the world has escaped its invitation.

Damn, here we go again! I can't stand it anymore! What are you researching, landlord!

The propositions of the social sciences are not standardized at all! What is conjecture? Conjecture is about proving right or wrong!

The correctness of the "surrounding conjecture" is itself a paradox! If you want to prove it, you have to list all the cases, and if all the cases are true! Then this conjecture is correct!

The so-called "answers" you are listing now are not at all extensive, even if you ask for them 100 times! 1000 times n times does not prove the correctness of this conjecture.

Since the correctness is questionable, this conjecture is also meaningless!!

Again: there are only 2 answers to any conjecture! It's either right or wrong! That's the logical meaning of conjecture!

"To love to be loved" is not the answer at all! Just guess one of these situations!

1. First of all, affirm the statement of dylh9090, since it is a "**conjecture", it is either correct or wrong.

2. The "gap of the month" is also reasonable, the premise of the social "harmony theory" is that people must be within the level of survival, in the turbulent society of war for many years, or in the slavery dynasty of the primitive society, the basic morality of the society has no bottom line, and the society at that time had a situation of cannibalism, "love and be loved" was certainly not something that was accepted by everyone in the world in the field of social sciences at that time, at least something that was not opposed.

3. The basic logic agrees with the idea of shuh798, which is a common problem in the human world, and betrayal and rebellion can also lead to the incorrectness of "surrounding conjectures".

4. Based on the above, it is clear that "loving and being loved" in a specific environment is not the answer to "surrounding conjecture".

Therefore, whether a conjecture is correct or not can be judged by citing a counterexample, so the "surrounding conjecture" is wrong.

5. Indeed, if there is a so-called answer, then the baptism of death should be something in the field of social sciences that can be accepted by all people in the world, or at least something that is not opposed. But many people are still figuring out how to "immortalize" life. So again, there is no basis for the "harmony theory", and this society can only be said to be "quasi-harmonious".

Yes Yes It's faith.

No one in the world has a belief in their own life, although there are good and bad, but that writing is relative!

I think belief (wish) is the kind of understanding that can be accepted in this world, at least no one objects, but everyone sticks to their own beliefs, and can give everything and even their lives for this Am I right? >

in the field of social sciences"Commonality"It is universal, not specific to each individual. Yours"Harmony Theory"It should be universal, right?!!

To be sure, there should be no spiritual, material, or behavioral, phenomena in the field of social sciences that will be accepted by all people in the world or opposed by no one.

Counter-Evidence – If such a thing exists, it must exist in something that everyone in you and your family members can accept, and it must exist in something that everyone outside of you and your family members can accept together, a collection of {you and your family members}u {everyone outside you and your family members} {all people in the world}, and the contradiction between the word "many" and "many" shows that the intersection of "many" and {many} is only an empty set!

I can't explain it thoroughly, the idea is clear, the meaning is clear, and there is a master who will be able to be logically flawless.

Healthy! Happy! The value of life!

Satisfaction, what all people need.

It's just nothing, no one can object.

Time is forced to accept and cannot be opposed.

The origin of the "four-color conjecture" can be said to be long. In 1852, when Francis Guthrie, a graduate of the University of London, came to work on map coloring at a scientific research institute, he discovered that each map could be colored in four colors, so that countries with common borders could be colored differently. In mathematical language, it is "arbitrarily subdivided into non-overlapping regions, each of which can always be marked with one of these four numbers, without giving two adjacent regions the same number."

By adjacent area, we mean that there is an entire section of boundary that is public. If two regions meet only one point or a finite number of points, they are not called adjacent. Because coloring them with the same color will not cause confusion.

Can this conclusion be mathematically rigorously proven? In 1872, Kelly, the most famous British mathematician at that time, formally proposed this problem to the London Mathematical Society, so the "four-color conjecture" became a concern of the world's mathematical community.

After the advent of electronic computers, due to the rapid increase in the speed of calculation and the emergence of human-computer dialogue, the process of proving the four-color conjecture was greatly accelerated. In 1976, American mathematicians Appel and Haken spent 1,200 hours on three different electronic computers at the University of Illinois in the United States to make more than 10 billion judgments to finally complete the proof. The computer proof of the "four-color conjecture" caused a sensation in the world, thus making the "four-color conjecture" a four-color theorem.

Not only does it solve a puzzle that has lasted for more than 100 years, but it has the potential to be the starting point for a series of new ideas in the history of mathematics. However, many mathematicians are not satisfied with the achievements of computers, and they are still looking for a simpler and clearer way to prove it in writing, and this time there is a debate about the new ideas of Chinese philosophers.

The upstairs Lsinyz classmate used the counter-evidence method, but in the end it went wrong.

I'll change that:

Assumptions"Surrounding conjecture"Not true.

then"The surrounding conjecture is wrong"Establish.

Namely"The surrounding conjecture is wrong"It is something that is accepted by everyone in the world, or at least something that is not opposed, which contradicts the assumption.

So"Surrounding conjecture"Establish.

The above is the common counter-proof method in mathematical proofs.

This one. It's too hard.

First of all"Surrounding conjecture"Is it true?

What is the criterion for determining whether it is right or wrong?

See what you think.

Could it be"What is acceptable to everyone in the world, at least not opposed", so it holds?

If so, there are:

If"Surrounding conjecture"Not true.

then"The surrounding conjecture is wrong"Establish.

Namely"The surrounding conjecture is wrong"It is something that is accepted by everyone in the world, or at least something that is not opposed.

So"Surrounding conjecture"is wrong.

Since it is a conjecture, it has not been proven to be correct, and even scientists will think that it is untenable (express objection), and when many untrue opinions are listed, they will be eliminated one by one, and then the correct way to verify it will be found. Prove it right or wrong.

A lot, the evolutionary process of human beings is roughly the same, we come to the same planet, live under the same blue sky, have the same sun, the same moon, the same starry sky on our heads, and so many things are in common.

Such as **, such as smiling.

In the field of social sciences, the development of human society, peace and development are the two major themes of the current world. Is there anyone in the world who opposes these two themes right now?

This problem seems to be similar to that of humans. As long as human beings began to be conscious in the form of a small group, is it possible to have a consensus? That is to say, when human beings were in the middle of primitive society, there was no interruption in cultural continuity, and there was only one place of origin that could have ??

I think 1+1=2 may be something that no one objects, or everyone has a head, so no one may object.

There are so many things that are acceptable to all, and what is there at the moment is the truth.

People cannot survive without oxygen.

It is 4 years old after 3 years old.

To survive, one has to eat.

A living person has a head.

Consciousness: People can do nothing, but they can't refuse consciousness, and although they will die if they don't drink water, there are many people who want to commit suicide.

For a while, it really doesn't need to.

But consciousness alone cannot be separated.

Unconscious is basically not a person anymore.

Brain death is already the latest standard for death.

This is a paradox, and the proposition is not monolithic, so there is no value in discussing.

No, as long as I'm against it, it's gone!

People cannot survive without oxygen.

The giant panda is a national treasure of China.

Although the sparrow is small, it has all five organs.

That's a lot!!For example, people cannot survive without oxygen, and people need to drink water to survive.

It's impossible not to accept food.

It seems to be a problem, but in fact it cannot be called a problem at all.

China will be the strongest in the near future.

6 articles. Any two points can form a line segment, such as when there are n points of late song, the number of line segments is n*(n-1) 2

"I think something is wrong" means that usually my "silencer" does not reach the door, and the classroom will not be quiet.

"Beautiful conjecture" means that today must be Mr. Huang's birthday, and the children guessed this because of a small question and a casual laugh, and I couldn't bear to tell them that today was not my birthday, for fear that telling the truth would disappoint them, disappoint them, and even hurt their feelings. : The relationship between the teacher and the students is very deep, c

F, uh, teacher, I can only help you with this, and the answer will be written by those children.

1 Read through the whole article and try to analyze the meaning of the title of the article, "Plant '** Technique'". (3 points).

2 The main expression in this article is illustrative, and the expression used in the first paragraph is . Please talk about the purpose of using this expression according to your own understanding. (3 points).

The first paragraph reads: "Next to Longdingshan Village in Xincheng County, Guangxi, there is a 'meteorological tree' that is more than 150 years old. The reason for calling it a "weather tree" is .

2 points)4 According to the content of the article, please use your own words to talk about the practical significance of studying the mechanism of plant **? (3 points).

Answer: 1 Some plants have the function of natural disasters such as **** and **weather changes.

2 Narrative (narrative) arouses the reader's interest in reading, leading to the following explanation of the "** technique" of plants.

3 Ability to have natural disasters such as **** The weather can be based on the change in the color of its leaves.

4. Able to effectively prevent natural disasters such as ** and reduce losses; It can effectively improve the weather conditions, facilitate the reasonable arrangement of farm work, etc.