“If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.”<\/p>\n
This tired old adage sounds accusing and incriminating, like you’re supposed to feel guilty for not working towards a solution, a better world. It’s a bold, shaming aphorism.<\/p>\n
Here’s my version.<\/p>\n
“If you’re not part of the problem, you’re part of the solution!”<\/p>\n
Optimism. Relief. Exoneration.<\/p>\n
Mine sounds so much more optimistic than the original. Yet, they are exactly logically equivalent.<\/p>\n
Both of them state that “you” are “part of the solution” or<\/strong> “part of the problem” (and maybe both). There are two sets: “problem”, “solution” and you are a member of at least<\/strong> one.<\/p>\n Don’t believe me? Here’s a rough guide to a formal proof.<\/p>\n Let S = “you are part of the solution” and P = “you are part of the problem”.<\/p>\n The first statement translates to “~S => P”.<\/p>\n The second statement translates to “~P => S”.<\/p>\n We will show that one implies the other. First, we will prove that (~S => P) => (~P => S).<\/p>\n The proof that (~P=>S)=>(~S=>P) is virtually identical (just swap the roles of P and S).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.” This tired old adage sounds accusing and incriminating, like you’re supposed to feel guilty for not working towards a solution, a better world. It’s a bold, shaming aphorism. Here’s my version. “If you’re not part of the problem, you’re part of the solution!” … Continue reading You’re a Part of Something<\/span> \r\n1. ~S => P (assumption)\r\n2. ~P (assumption)\r\n3. ~S (assumption)\r\n4. P (1&3, implication, depends on 1,3)\r\n5. P & ~P (2&4, depends on 1,2,3)\r\n6. ~~S (RAA, 5&3, depends on 1,2)\r\n7. S (double negation, depends on 1,2)\r\n8. ~P=>S (2&7, implication, depends on 1)\r\n9. (~S=>P)=>(~P=>S) (1&8, implication, no dependencies)\r\n<\/pre>\n