Con(tra(ns)diction)

On the planet Jilgathar near the Hux III Nebula, its population is in a period of crisis, in this case, a social crisis.

For on this planet, Jilgatarians are usually born in two variations. About half are born with the mark of a rectangle and the other half with the mark of a triangle.

Of course, not all rectangles are the same.

Just as not all triangles are the same.

These brands influence the way individuals grow in various ways, providing some different characteristics.

Over time, norms, values ​​and attitudes were stipulated for those born with the rectangle mark, called “rectangular” and for those born with the triangle mark, called “triangular”.

However, several triangular preferred that set of customs referring to the rectangular ones, in the same way, that several rectangular preferred that set of customs referring to the triangular ones.

Fortunately in that society, the rights and duties of Jilgatarians today make no distinction between triangular and rectangular. As an option for the Jilgatarians themselves to recognize themselves as they best identify,

However, in Jilgathar there is an institution quite old and with immense influence on that planet, but it does not deal well with this freedom of customs. Its more radical adherents simply do not accept Jilgatarians who do not identify with their birthmark, and the two arguments they use to reject this portion of the population are:

  • if a Jilgatarian was born with the triangle, he would be a triangular, and if he was born with the rectangle he would be a rectangular;
  • Jilgatarians must form pairs, one triangular and one rectangular.

Faced with this conflict, and respecting that many Jilgatarians are supporters of this institution, several Science blogs received emails from across the universe asking for help in dealing with this context.

We at Blog Zero were touched by this crisis and discussed the cause of the Jilgatarians.

We have arrived at a line of reasoning that can be used to show how the arguments of this institution run counter to each other (so our response to the Jilgatarians follows).


Dear Jilgatarians,

the arguments used by this institution for not accepting this portion of the population are inconsistent. That is, it is possible for us to show that there is a contradiction in them. Let’s start by taking hypothetically 10 individuals who were born with the triangle mark and 10 who were born with the rectangle mark.

Let’s suppose that out of these 20 individuals, 5 with the triangle mark preferred to follow the expected customs for the rectangular ones, and 5 with the rectangle mark preferred to follow the expected customs for the triangular ones.

Over time, these 20 individuals came to form 10 pairs, numbered from left to right as a pair 01, up to a pair 10. In fact, these represent all the ways to combine individuals considering these two characteristics (initial brand, brand with which to identifies).

At first, the institution will refuse pairs 01, 02, 09 and 10, as both arguments allow them to do so.

As for the pair 03, the institution will include without reservations, as it agrees with both arguments.

The contradiction however comes with pairs 04, 05, 06, 07 and 08.

  • If the 1st and 2nd arguments are applied, the institution can exclude pairs 04 and 05. But it will need to include pairs 06, 07 and 08.
  • If only the 2nd argument is applied, the institution can exclude pairs 07 and 08. But it will need to include pairs 04, 05 and 06.
  • Neither of the two arguments allow to exclude pair 06.

In both cases pair 06 is safe in this situation. But the contradiction lies in the impossibility of excluding pairs 04, 05 and pairs 07 and 08 at the same time.

In other words, from these 5 possible pairs that the institution’s radicals do not admit, their same arguments do not make it possible to exclude more than 2 of these pairs at the same time. So, by compulsorily excluding 2 of these pairs by using these arguments, they corroborate for the inclusion of the other 3 pairs.

Although it still does not represent the ideal scenario for the end of this social crisis, we believe that this reasoning can show that there is a contradiction (inconsistency) in the principles that lead to the integral rejection of this part of the Jilgarian population.

We are at your disposal for any questions you may have about this argument.

Att. Blog Zero Team


Deixe um comentário

O seu endereço de e-mail não será publicado.

Skip to content