The Picard Maneuver@lemmy.worldM to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world · 4 个月前The science is dividedlemmy.worldexternal-linkmessage-square53fedilinkarrow-up1775arrow-down17
arrow-up1768arrow-down1external-linkThe science is dividedlemmy.worldThe Picard Maneuver@lemmy.worldM to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world · 4 个月前message-square53fedilink
minus-squareThatGuy46475@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up3·4 个月前It’s not circular reasoning, it’s a step of mathematical induction. First you show that something is true for a set of 1, then you show that if it’s true for a set of n it is also true for a set of n+1.
minus-squaresp3ctr4l@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·4 个月前As with Kogasa, you’re right that this is not circular reasoning, it is induction. I judged it a bit too quickly. However, it isn’t a valid proof of induction. I tried to work through exactly where and how it fails in another comment. So… it is still fallacious reasoning of some kind, but yes, not the circular reasoning fallacy.
It’s not circular reasoning, it’s a step of mathematical induction. First you show that something is true for a set of 1, then you show that if it’s true for a set of n it is also true for a set of n+1.
As with Kogasa, you’re right that this is not circular reasoning, it is induction.
I judged it a bit too quickly.
However, it isn’t a valid proof of induction.
I tried to work through exactly where and how it fails in another comment.
So… it is still fallacious reasoning of some kind, but yes, not the circular reasoning fallacy.