Has anyone had this kind of upbringing?

[TrueTears]

I still don't get what you mean lol

Are you still saying I said practise+no talent > practise + talent is true in general? Coz I never said that

I merely said

But eventually, we must concede that natural talent/passion+ practise > practise and expressionless Chinese fingers.

is false in general, but never said the converse had to be true in general. I also showed it was false in general using common sense logic.

[EvangelionZeta]

I still don't get what you mean lol

Are you still saying I said practise+no talent > practise + talent is true in general? Coz I never said that

I merely said

But eventually, we must concede that natural talent/passion+ practise > practise and expressionless Chinese fingers.

is false in general, but never said the converse had to be true in general. I also showed it was false in general using common sense logic.

Ok, using my definition of in general (ie. 90% of the case, or most of the time, whatever):

If it is false that natural talent+passion>natural talent+no passion in general, then 10% (or whatever figure) of the time natural talent+passion>natural talent+no passion, whereas 90% of the time natural talent+no passion>natural talent+passion.

If it is true that natural talent+no passion>natural talent+passion in general, then 90% of the time natural talent+no passion>natural talent+passion, etc.  Therefore if it is false that natural talent+passion>natural talent+no passion in general (under my definition, which seems to be the point of misunderstanding here), then it is true that natural talent+no passion>natural talent+passion.

Common sense logic indeed.  =)

[CharlieW]

But eventually, we must concede that natural talent/passion+ practise > practise and expressionless Chinese fingers.

In general, false.

Do you claim that Asians are more inherently predisposed to music than Europeans?

I'm confused by what both you and TT are trying to argue.

@TT, how can it be possible that practice+no talent/passion>practice+talent/passion? 

@Chavi, how does TT's statement lead to the conclusion that Asians are inherently more predisposed towards music?

??

when did this become related to music?

i was talking about this statement:

I hate how everyone says Asians are pro. I think Asians reach a high standard of whatever they do through ardent practice, but honestly, the Russians/Germans/French are I believe the most naturally talented throughout history etc.

it has nothing to do with music?

its false in general because we can find a counter example, consider waldner, one of the most talent table tennis players in history no doubt, no chinese players could beat him, however came liu guo liang, his talent when compared to waldner was almost insignificant, he didn't have the brains like waldner nor the willpower, but he practise insanely hard, in an interview, he said he watched countless amount of waldner videos, played people with same style as waldner and eventually beat waldner at all WTTC's.

thus

practice+no talent>practice+talent

and talent is a relative thing, by no talent i interpret that as less talent as someone else

That generalisation still doesn't make sense.  From the example you've given, it sounds more like Liu Guo Liang practiced specifically to beat Waldner, in which case your inequation should be more like more practice+no talent>practice+talent, which I can agree with as possibly occuring.  However, I still don't see how it's possible to say that practice+no talent+practice+talent in general is true - it's like saying that 100+0>100+1, assuming that the two people have practiced the same amount.

Um... im sorry but you really dont get it do you? cmon it's easy maths...

when did i ever say the converse holds? since you think i said "However, I still don't see how it's possible to say that practice+no talent+practice+talent in general is true" can you please quote me where i said that?

i said practise + talent > practise + no talent in general is FALSE i never said the converse holds did i? and i proved that practise + talent > practise + no talent is FALSE in GENERAL by finding a counterexample, a valid method of proof according to discrete mathematics logic. I never went on to prove that practise + no talent > practise + talent in general.

so yea, pls read carefully thanks

Proof by Contradiction

[/0]

o_O

[TrueTears]

I still don't get what you mean lol

Are you still saying I said practise+no talent > practise + talent is true in general? Coz I never said that

I merely said

But eventually, we must concede that natural talent/passion+ practise > practise and expressionless Chinese fingers.

is false in general, but never said the converse had to be true in general. I also showed it was false in general using common sense logic.

Ok, using my definition of in general (ie. 90% of the case, or most of the time, whatever):

If it is false that natural talent+passion>natural talent+no passion in general, then 10% (or whatever figure) of the time natural talent+passion>natural talent+no passion, whereas 90% of the time natural talent+no passion>natural talent+passion.

If it is true that natural talent+no passion>natural talent+passion in general, then 90% of the time natural talent+no passion>natural talent+passion, etc.  Therefore if it is false that natural talent+passion>natural talent+no passion in general (under my definition, which seems to be the point of misunderstanding here), then it is true that natural talent+no passion>natural talent+passion.

Common sense logic indeed.  =)

sorry but you didn't answer my Qs in my previous posts, still waiting.

also um, you're going offtrack, ive never mentioned anything about "natural talent+passion>natural talent+no passion in general" nor did i ever mention anything about passion, please i beg you to read carefully.

I dont care about what you're trying to prove, since it doesnt relate to anything i said, all i care about is how you are wrong about making this statement about me:

That generalisation still doesn't make sense.

When i didnt even make any generalisations rofl, i just find a counter example to show that

But eventually, we must concede that natural talent/passion+ practise > practise and expressionless Chinese fingers.

In general, false.

is indeed false in general.

so yea... can you please please please show which imaginary "generalisation" i made didnt make any sense?

[Aurelian]

When i didnt even make any generalisations rofl, i just find a counter example to show that ... is indeed false in general.

so yea... can you please please please show which imaginary "generalisation" i made didnt make any sense?

Out of genuine curiosity, how exactly does a single counterexample show that a given statement is false "in general" (with regards to the common-sense definition of "in general" EZ provided)?

[TrueTears]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterexample

[Aurelian]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterexample

As far as I can tell you're equivocating in your usage of counterexamples between mathematic logic and philosophical logic.

As far as even that link is concerned, a counterexample shows that a closed statement is false, but EZ's is not a closed statement, but rather a statement concerned with what is the case "in general" (ie, most of the time) and therefore a single counterexample will not do to disprove his claim; after all, implicit in the claim is the admission that counterexamples most likely do exist in the first place.

[EvangelionZeta]

I still don't get what you mean lol

Are you still saying I said practise+no talent > practise + talent is true in general? Coz I never said that

I merely said

But eventually, we must concede that natural talent/passion+ practise > practise and expressionless Chinese fingers.

is false in general, but never said the converse had to be true in general. I also showed it was false in general using common sense logic.

Ok, using my definition of in general (ie. 90% of the case, or most of the time, whatever):

If it is false that natural talent+passion>natural talent+no passion in general, then 10% (or whatever figure) of the time natural talent+passion>natural talent+no passion, whereas 90% of the time natural talent+no passion>natural talent+passion.

If it is true that natural talent+no passion>natural talent+passion in general, then 90% of the time natural talent+no passion>natural talent+passion, etc.  Therefore if it is false that natural talent+passion>natural talent+no passion in general (under my definition, which seems to be the point of misunderstanding here), then it is true that natural talent+no passion>natural talent+passion.

Common sense logic indeed.  =)

sorry but you didn't answer my Qs in my previous posts, still waiting.

also um, you're going offtrack, ive never mentioned anything about "natural talent+passion>natural talent+no passion in general" nor did i ever mention anything about passion, please i beg you to read carefully.

I dont care about what you're trying to prove, since it doesnt relate to anything i said, all i care about is how you are wrong about making this statement about me:

That generalisation still doesn't make sense.

When i didnt even make any generalisations rofl, i just find a counter example to show that

But eventually, we must concede that natural talent/passion+ practise > practise and expressionless Chinese fingers.

In general, false.

is indeed false in general.

so yea... can you please please please show which imaginary "generalisation" i made didnt make any sense?

2am typing, used the wrong words.  Replace talent with "practice" and passion with "natural talent" (I have no idea how I started using natural talent and passion).  You should have been able to get the gist of my argument just from that one example anyway...

Seriously, stop equivocating between a common use of the term "in general" and a maths term which only you and maybe two other people on this forum will think of.  It all comes back to iffets' original post, which was clearly using the common definition of the term...

[TrueTears]

lol u STILL avoid answering me becoz u know ur wrong lol pls answer me

all i care about is how you are wrong about making this statement about me:

That generalisation still doesn't make sense.

When i didnt even make any generalisations rofl, i just find a counter example to show that

But eventually, we must concede that natural talent/passion+ practise > practise and expressionless Chinese fingers.

In general, false.

is indeed false in general.

so yea... can you please please please show which imaginary "generalisation" i made didnt make any sense?

[Aurelian]

so yea... can you please please please show which imaginary "generalisation" i made didnt make any sense?

I cannot speak definitely for EZ, but I would suggest that the generalization he spoke of a solid 18 posts ago would be that you used your counterexample to show something "in general", which in any layman's dictionary would count as a generalization. 

[EvangelionZeta]

lol u STILL avoid answering me becoz u know ur wrong lol pls answer me

all i care about is how you are wrong about making this statement about me:

That generalisation still doesn't make sense.

When i didnt even make any generalisations rofl, i just find a counter example to show that

But eventually, we must concede that natural talent/passion+ practise > practise and expressionless Chinese fingers.

In general, false.

is indeed false in general.

so yea... can you please please please show which imaginary "generalisation" i made didnt make any sense?

Ok. You say xx in general is false. I interpret that (as most people would) as meaning you are generalizing xx is false. Saying xx is false generally (in normal speak) entails xy to be true by necessity. Xy is not true. Therefore xx cannot true. Yes I know (as I pointed out previously) that there is a bit of a clash of definition, and that your in general is a different, less common usage if the term, hence the confusion. Can you accept that under my set of rules, I am right, now?

Edit: apologies for typos, typing usig iPhone on bed zzz >>

[TrueTears]

hi there, i did not show something "in general" thanks please read carefully, i found an EXAMPLE, never did i say anything in general.

All i used was simple logic, nothing MATHEMATICAL, please check the wiki article.

I showed by an example that "practise + talent > practise + no talent" did not always have to hold true.

So if Evagentalionzeta thought that my comment didnt make sense, then i guess he didnt have enough logic, please dont say it doesnt make sense if you didnt have the knowledge to understand it because it did make sense

however i never did make any generalisations, i just found an example... so... i still dont understand why ez said "your generalisation still doesnt make sense"  

[Aurelian]

hi there, i did not show something "in general" thanks please read carefully, i found an EXAMPLE, never did i say anything in general.

I guess it was the part where you said, via your counterexample, that the statement was "false in general" that threw us. *cough*

I showed by an example that "practise + talent > practise + no talent" did not always have to hold true.

This is precisely what EZ and I have been arguing the whole time, it's just that we thought you were making the claim that due to the fact "practice + whatever > donkeys" does not always have to hold true that therefore it generally doesn't hold true (which, as said, you seemed to suggest by saying it was "false in general").

I guess then this has all been a complete misunderstanding and we have in fact been in complete agreement this whole time! Whoopie!

If not, TrueTears, maybe you should just lock this thread already; this issue clearly isn't anywhere near resolution, and the debate itself has almost entirely lost context, and is completely off topic.

[ninwa]

never did i say anything in general.

i said practise + talent > practise + no talent in general is FALSE i never said the converse holds did i? and i proved that practise + talent > practise + no talent is FALSE in GENERAL by finding a counterexample, a valid method of proof according to discrete mathematics logic. I never went on to prove that practise + no talent > practise + talent in general.

its false in general because we can find a counter example

But eventually, we must concede that natural talent/passion+ practise > practise and expressionless Chinese fingers.

In general, false.

Also, using the mathematical rather than generally-understood meaning of a term in a debate about a non-mathematics-related topic is, frankly, quite silly, IMO.