### Steven Pinker tests your deductive reasoning

Sunday, January 8th, 2017Depending on the content two problems with identical logical overlay can be obvious or difficult.

Depending on the content two problems with identical logical overlay can be obvious or difficult.

- Louis DeBroglie does not get the credit he deserves for original thinking in quantum machanics – DeBroglie thesis paper – he won the Nobel Prize in 1929 for very good reasons which you will see if you read his thesis paper.
- I am looking for the single photon counter used in this experimental setup

PowerPoint presentation of experiment Uses an SPCM-APD ( Single Photon Counting Module – Avalanch Photo Detector )

Relatively simple setup uses spontaneous parametric downconversion of photon to create 2 photons that are entangled. Then these are sent to 2 single photon detectors. If you have any of the parts or pieces of this setup for sale I would be interested in buying.

**Summary: If a ridiculous Bee implies an impossible See, an impossible See implies your Bee is ridiculous. Thus Don’t Bee ridiculous.** Proof by contradiction is an essential tool of thought that everyone should know. However it is quite evident to me most people do no know it. Let me see if I can explain it. Steps: -1- assume an item to be true. You usually suspect it to be false and use the method to prove it. -2- follow the logical results of this assumption to an absurd conclusion -3- since the logical result is absurd the assumption must be false. You can negate the assumption. Be careful when you do this. Taking the negative is not as straight forward as many non mathematical people would think. Example: Prove I am not George Washington. -1- Assume I am George Washington the first president of the USA -2- my face should match the face on the front of the 1 dollar bill ….does it? Clearly no. -3- the conclusion my face matches the face on the front of the dollar bill and thus the negative of statement 1 is true = I AM NOT GEORGE WASHINGTON. Sound absurd. Read the next example and see how the very same method applied to something that sounds more official makes the proof alot simpler than attacking it directly !! **Theorem.** There are infinitely many prime numbers. **Proof.** Assume to the contrary that there are only finitely many prime numbers, and all of them are listed as follows: p_{1}, p_{2} …, p_{n}. Consider the number q = p_{1}p_{2}… p_{n} + 1. The number q is either prime or composite. If we divided any of the listed primes p_{i} into q, there would result a remainder of 1 for each i = 1, 2, …, n. Thus, q cannot be composite. We conclude that q is a prime number, not among the primes listed above, contradicting our assumption that **all** primes are in the list p_{1}, p_{2} …, p_{n}.

You own and business and you want to encourage gym usage on the part of your employees. What is the optimum method? Do you pay the total cost of the membership? The smartest solution is how the owner of EFDATA Bob Fitting handled gym memberships. Gym memberships were subsidized but not free. His explanation was if its free EVERYBODY signs up and they 1 in 10 uses what his company paid for. His solution? It was to charge a nominal fee large enough that you had to really WANT to use the membership or it made no sense. It was like 20 bucks a month. Just enough to make them make a decision. This is a flip side view of the same idea that people do not respect things they get for a low cost. For example if you are too nice unless the person(s) you are dealing with are very mature and have alot of experience dealing with people you are bound to get short shrift. Even then it pays to toughen up sometimes. But then some people are just so sweet they are really not capable of stinking the place up. Its a delicate balance knowing when to spray. What does Mr. Skanks say?