Logical fallacy Memes

Behold, the utopian future we'd have if people understood basic logical equivalences! That bottom equation—P(A|B)=P(B|A)—is the most criminal offense here. That's like saying "the probability it's raining given there are clouds equals the probability there are clouds given it's raining." No wonder we're still stuck with traffic jams instead of flying cars. The meme perfectly captures that fantasy world where confusing correlation with causation and butchering Bayes' theorem somehow leads to a futuristic paradise. Spoiler alert: misunderstanding conditional probability is precisely why your weather app still says "30% chance of rain" on days when you're already soaking wet.

Oh, the beautiful logical fallacy in action! This is what happens when you skip math class to hunt mythical creatures! 🤣 The comic brilliantly illustrates the classic "affirming the consequent" logical error. Just because werewolves are killed by silver bullets doesn't mean everything killed by silver bullets is a werewolf! That's like saying "all cats have fur, this has fur, therefore it's a cat" while pointing at your grandpa's toupee! In set theory terms, our trigger-happy friend failed to understand that "werewolves" are a subset of "things that can be killed by silver bullets" - not the other way around! The proper logical statement would be "If X is a werewolf, then X can be killed by silver bullets" - but the reverse isn't necessarily true! Next time, maybe bring a mathematician along on your monster hunt! 🔍🧮

The mathematical facepalm is real! In logic, a biconditional statement (p ↔ q) works both ways - that's literally the whole point! It's like saying "I'm hungry if and only if there's no food in the fridge" and then being shocked when someone points out this also means "There's no food in the fridge if and only if I'm hungry." The beauty of biconditionals is you don't need to prove the converse separately - it's baked into the definition! Even parallel lines know this relationship goes both ways. 😂

This is a classic case of someone trying to apply mathematical set theory to social concepts without understanding how logical implications actually work! The notation in the title (A ⊇ B ⇒ A ⊆ B) is mathematically incorrect - if A contains B (superset), it doesn't imply that A is contained in B (subset). That's like saying "if all squares are rectangles, then all rectangles are squares" - which is demonstrably false! The tweet confuses subset relationships with categorical statements. In set theory, "trans women are women" would be expressed as "trans women ⊆ women" (trans women are a subset of women), but that doesn't logically imply the reverse statement "women ⊆ trans women" (all women are trans women). The person clearly slept through their discrete mathematics class and now thinks they've made some profound logical discovery. Next time, bring coffee to those 8 AM math lectures!

The mathematical trickery here is absolutely brilliant! This "proof" uses the one special temperature where Celsius and Fahrenheit scales intersect (-40°) and then performs some delightfully bogus algebra on it. It's like saying "I found the one place where these roads cross, therefore ALL roads must cross everywhere!" The QED at the end (Latin for "thus it has been demonstrated") is the chef's kiss of mathematical overconfidence. Temperature conversion actually follows the formula F = (9/5)C + 32, but who needs actual formulas when you can just divide both sides by -40 and call it a day? This is what happens when you skip too many math classes but still want to sound smart at parties!

This is mathematical malpractice at its finest! Our brave "researcher" here is committing the cardinal sin of algebra—squaring both sides of an equation without checking if it introduces extraneous solutions. The original equation y+2=y simplifies to 2=0, which is obviously impossible. But by squaring both sides, they've created a false path to y=-1, which doesn't actually work when you plug it back in. This is like trying to prove 1=2 and then using it to get out of paying half your taxes. Nice try, but the IRS and mathematicians alike remain unimpressed.

When the doctor drops that statistical bomb, everyone's brain short-circuits differently! Normal folks are terrified (rightfully so), mathematicians are cringing at the blatant probability violation, and scientists are just chillin' with sunglasses because they've already accepted that randomness is a cruel mistress. The doctor's statement is a perfect example of the Gambler's Fallacy - thinking previous outcomes affect independent events. It's like believing your coin is "due" for heads after 10 tails. Statistics doesn't work that way, buddy! The universe doesn't owe you balance. Those 20 survivors? Pure coincidence that's about to get balanced in the most unfortunate way possible.

This "proof" is mathematical blasphemy of the highest order! It starts with the visual trick that rotating 6 gives you 9 (true in typography, catastrophic in math), then smuggles in the equivalence between 180° and π radians (which is correct) to create a delightfully flawed equation. The fatal logical leap is treating rotation as addition. Engineers might round π to 3 when building a shed, but this "proof" would make mathematicians spontaneously combust. It's like claiming you can turn water into wine by writing "H₂O" and then erasing it to write "wine" instead. The smug "QED" at the end is the mathematical equivalent of dropping the mic after telling a terrible dad joke. Pure genius in its wrongness!