How to stop worrying (cute humor)

  • Thread starter Thread starter greatscott
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Humor
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around a theoretical framework for understanding worry, defining it in terms of human choices and actions. It establishes that a person is considered to be worrying if their set of choices includes multiple options or a single worry-related action. The key theorem presented asserts that the only way to stop worrying is to consciously decide not to worry. The proof supports this by illustrating that making a decision not to worry results in a single choice, while indecision leads to multiple options, thereby perpetuating worry. The conversation also includes a light-hearted remark referencing the popular phrase "Don't worry...be happy," indicating a mix of humor and frustration with the complexity of the definitions provided.
greatscott
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
I have just discovered how to stop worrying! Here it goes (Unicode):

Definition.
Let H be the set of all humans, A the set of all actions, and W ⊂A be the set of all worries. A person p ∈ H is said to be worrying if and only if p's set of choices C = {f(p)} (where f(p) ∈ A) either has more than one elements or has precisely one element c ∈ W.​
Theorem.
The only way to stop worrying is to decide to do so.​
Proof.
If a person p ∈ H makes a decision not to worry, which we denote as n ∉ W, rather than to worry, which we denote as w, then C = {f(p)} = {n} which has only one element. If p decides to worry, p is certainly worrying since C = {w} where w ∈ W. Now, if p does not decide whether to worry or not, p's set of choices has at least two elements, namely C = {n, w, ...}. Therefore, the only way to stop worrying is to decide not to worry. ∎
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
greatscott said:
I have just discovered how to stop worrying! Here it goes (Unicode):

Definition.
Let H be the set of all humans, A the set of all actions, and W ⊂A be the set of all worries. A person p ∈ H is said to be worrying if and only if p's set of choices C = {f(p)} (where f(p) ∈ A) either has more than one elements or has precisely one element c ∈ W.​
Theorem.
The only way to stop worrying is to decide to do so.​
Proof.
If a person p ∈ H makes a decision not to worry, which we denote as n ∉ W, rather than to worry, which we denote as w, then C = {f(p)} = {n} which has only one element. If p decides to worry, p is certainly worrying since C = {w} where w ∈ W. Now, if p does not decide whether to worry or not, p's set of choices has at least two elements, namely C = {n, w, ...}. Therefore, the only way to stop worrying is to decide not to worry. ∎

"Don't worry...be happy", so said the wise and (for a while) ubiquitous fish-on-the-wall.
 
that "definition" makes me worry
 
that definition makes my head hurt lol
 
Similar to the 2024 thread, here I start the 2025 thread. As always it is getting increasingly difficult to predict, so I will make a list based on other article predictions. You can also leave your prediction here. Here are the predictions of 2024 that did not make it: Peter Shor, David Deutsch and all the rest of the quantum computing community (various sources) Pablo Jarrillo Herrero, Allan McDonald and Rafi Bistritzer for magic angle in twisted graphene (various sources) Christoph...
Thread 'My experience as a hostage'
I believe it was the summer of 2001 that I made a trip to Peru for my work. I was a private contractor doing automation engineering and programming for various companies, including Frito Lay. Frito had purchased a snack food plant near Lima, Peru, and sent me down to oversee the upgrades to the systems and the startup. Peru was still suffering the ills of a recent civil war and I knew it was dicey, but the money was too good to pass up. It was a long trip to Lima; about 14 hours of airtime...

Similar threads

Back
Top