Millie outsmarts herself

[Richard K Niner]

<a href='http://au.ozyandmillie.net/2005/om20051005.html' target='_blank'>http://au.ozyandmillie.net/2005/om20051 ... br>Heh.<br>

[Bocaj Claw]

Come on guys! Outsmarting herself was hard work too! Shes a sly crafty one to be sure but she sure outmaneveured herself!<br><br>Only Millie.<br><br>Oh and she probably totally forgot about the book report.

[Richard K Niner]

That's why the technicality worked.

[NHJ BV]

Outsmarting yourself...that sounds like trying to argue that 2 is larger than 2 <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... /smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[Richard K Niner]

...doesn't that require proving that 2 != 2?<br>Because it seems that such a proof would go:<br><br><!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> <ol type='1'><li>2 >= 2 (trivial)</li><li>2 > 2 OR 2 = 2 (by def'n of >=)</li><li>NOT 2 = 2 (by some lemma)</li><li>2 > 2 (by line 2, 3, and disjunctive syllogism)</li></ol><br>Therefore, 2 > 2.  QED. <!--emo&:P--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Tom Flapwell]

So Millie's burst of inspiration yesterday was for the loophole and not the progression of the novel?<br><br>I have to say, I'm disappointed in this turn of events. I wanted to know a lot more about the novel, but her ADD (and perhaps the cartoonist's) got in the way.<br><br>Given that Millie is the Calvin type of kid who can express knowledge and wisdom well beyond her years one moment and look hyperbolically dimwitted the next, I should not be surprised that she outsmarted herself. She just has to time it right.

[Rooster]

I outsmarted myself once. It hurt.

[GhostWay]

<!--QuoteBegin-NHJ BV+Oct 5 2005, 01:50 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (NHJ BV @ Oct 5 2005, 01:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Outsmarting yourself...that sounds like trying to argue that 2 is larger than 2 <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... /smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> Reminds me of the phrase, "2+2=5, for significantly large values of 2."<br><br>But really, it's not that hard to outsmart yourself. You just have to think ahead of your thoughts, but this requires not thinking of thinking ahead. And not thinking of not thinking of thinking ahead. Repeat <i>ad nauseum</i>. Add a pinch of garlic, stir vigorously. Instant loophole!

[NHJ BV]

<!--QuoteBegin-Richard K Niner+Oct 6 2005, 12:03 AM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Richard K Niner @ Oct 6 2005, 12:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> ...doesn't that require proving that 2 != 2?<br>Because it seems that such a proof would go:<br><br><!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> <ol type='1'><br></li><li>2 >= 2 (trivial)<br></li><li>2 > 2 OR 2 = 2 (by def'n of >=)<br></li><li>NOT 2 = 2 (by some lemma)<br></li><li>2 > 2 (by line 2, 3, and disjunctive syllogism)<br></li></ol><br>Therefore, 2 > 2.  QED. <!--emo&:P--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> This seems to rely on the premise that 2 >= 2 means that you get to pick whether 2=2 or 2>2.<br><br>That, or please explain #3, why NOT 2 =2 <!--emo&:huh:--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... ns/huh.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='huh.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[Richard K Niner]

That's actually the part that doesn't work in the basic proof. I notated it as "by some lemma", because it would need elaboration. Especially since it is false by the definition of equality.<br>And that is why I said it would require proving NOT 2 = 2.

[Caoimhin]

Millicient Mudd, a young fox kit destined to be caught within her own personal paradox. Welcome to the Twilight Zone...

[NHJ BV]

<!--QuoteBegin-Richard K Niner+Oct 6 2005, 08:25 AM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Richard K Niner @ Oct 6 2005, 08:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> That's actually the part that doesn't work in the basic proof. I notated it as "by some lemma", because it would need elaboration. Especially since it is false by the definition of equality.<br>And that is why I said it would require proving NOT 2 = 2. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> Ah, okay. I never was very good at math anyway <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... /smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[Richard K Niner]

Of course, once you prove NOT 2 = 2, you've got a contradiction, because at any point you could introduce 2 = 2, and from that, conclude <i>whatever you want</i>...<br><br>...like "rutabegas are cool". <!--emo&:P--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[Phoenix]

It seems there's been an inordinate number of strips focusing on millie's antics recently. Where's Ozy's Limelight?

[Bocaj Claw]

Ozy is always best when hes bouncing off of another charecter (metaphorically, and in my opinion). And he happens to be an excellent foil to Millie.