Fortune Telling Collection - Comprehensive fortune-telling - What do you mean by questioning?

What do you mean by questioning?

Title: Inquiring about Pinyin: Basic Explanation of ZH √ YI [Inquiry; Ask questions and ask people to answer them. Good people always ask questions and ask questions from them. -"Biography of Chen Han Zun" questioned this question to the superior, explained it in detail, and put it forward to get the answer. "Guanzi, Seven Ministers and Seven Masters": "I don't believe in people, so I go my own way." "Southern History, Scholars and Ancient Yue": "To learn from weak school, you must build a door to question and discuss tirelessly." "Biography of Wen Yuan in the Ming Dynasty" Jiao Hong: "Ask Luo Rufang again from the direction of the procurator's suggestion." Chapter 7 of Zhu Guangqian's Review of Croce's Philosophy: "What I want to talk about now is only some difficulties encountered by individuals in reading Croce. I will state them in different articles as problems." The following is a typical scientific question: What did Chen Jingrun prove? One. What Chen Jingrun proved was not Goldbach's conjecture. Goldbach's conjecture co-authored by Chen Jingrun and Shao Pinzong wrote on page 1 18 (Liaoning Education Publishing House): The result of Chen Jingrun's theorem "1+ 1" is that for any even number n, an odd prime number P', p "or p655 can always be found. Make at least one of the following two formulas hold: N=P'+P" (A) N=P 1+P2*P3 (B). Of course, it does not rule out that (A)(B) holds simultaneously, such as 63=43+ 19, 62 = 7+5x655. As we all know, Goldbach's conjecture means that the even number (a) above 4 holds, and 1+2 means that the even number (b) above 10 holds. These are two different propositions. Chen Jingrun confused two unrelated propositions and changed the concept (proposition) when declaring the prize, while Chen Jingrun did not prove 65438+. (Questioning the result) 2. Chen Jingrun used the wrong form of reasoning, and Chen adopted the "affirmative formula" of compatible substitution reasoning: if it is not A, it is B, so if it is A, it is B, or both A and B are valid. This is a wrong form of reasoning, ambiguous, far-fetched, meaningless and uncertain, just like a fortune teller: Mrs. Li gave birth to a boy, a girl, or both (multiple births). Anyway, it's right. This judgment is called falsifiability in epistemology, and falsifiability is the boundary between science and pseudoscience. There is only one correct form of consistent substitution reasoning. Negative affirmation: neither a nor b is a, so there are two rules for B. consistent substitution reasoning: 1. If you deny one part of the choice, you must affirm the other part. It can be seen that the recognition of Chen Jingrun shows that China's mathematical society is chaotic and lacks basic logic training. (questioning method) 3. Chen Jingrun used many wrong concepts. Chen used two vague concepts of "big enough" and "almost prime number" in his thesis. The characteristics of scientific concepts are: accuracy, professionalism, stability, systematicness and testability. "Almost prime number" refers to a very large number of pixels. Is it like a child's game? And "big enough" means 10 to the power of 500,000, which is an unverifiable number. (questioning the concept) 4. Chen Jingrun's conclusion is not a theorem. The characteristics of Chen's conclusion are (some, some), that is, some N is (a) and some N is (b), so it can't be regarded as a theorem, because all strict scientific theorems and laws are expressed in the form of full name (all, all, all, each) propositions, and a full name proposition states the unchangeable relationship between all elements of a given class and applies to one. And Chen Jingrun's conclusion is not even a concept. (questioning the argument) 5. Chen Jingrun's works seriously violate the cognitive law. Before finding the general formula of prime numbers, Coriolis conjecture cannot be solved, just as turning a circle into a square depends on whether the transcendence of pi is clear, and the stipulation of matter determines the stipulation of quantity. (Philosophical query on that question)

See Baidu Encyclopedia "Question" for details.