Posted by linkadge on December 2, 2005, at 11:05:41 [reposted on December 3, 2005, at 14:38:51 | original URL]
In reply to Re: ...or overgeneralizing?, posted by alexandra_k on December 2, 2005, at 0:24:00
Of course, as an argument of induction, one is missing the crutial "induction step".
If we ordered the members of this site 1..n, proving the statement is true for 1, is not sufficiant to show that it is true for all other n.
There would need to be an induction step. Ie person n thinks he is smarter than his doctor -> person n 1 thinks he is smarter than his doctor. Then proof would follow based the presence of an iscolated case, and induction step.
P.S. This whole thread is nonsence.
Linkadge
poster:linkadge
thread:585017
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20051203/msgs/585035.html