- #1

- 2,111

- 18

A says:

"X_0 implies X_1. (then some explanations)

then X_1 implies X_2 (blablabla more explanations)

then X_2 implies X_3 (blablabla more explanations)

....

finally X_(n-1) implies X."

B responds to the A:

"QUOTE X_0 implies X_1. (then some explanations) /QUOTE

No, this is mistake. X_0 does not imply X_1.

QUOTE then X_1 implies X_2 (blablabla more explanations) /QUOTE

Again. You are assuming X_0 would imply X_1.

QUOTE then X_2 implies X_3 (blablabla more explanations) /QUOTE

Wrong. You are again assuming X_0 would imply X_1

....

QUOTE finally X_(n-1) implies X. /QUOTE

And again! X_0 does not imply X_1."

The person A probably knows that his reasoning chain was kind of reasoning chain where each step relies on the previous one. Wouldn't it just be sufficient for B to explain why the first step was wrong once? Isn't that a deliberate attempt to make the A's post seem more inconsistent than what it really is?