Nothing Happens At Ten

DG is still going at it….

Enough is enough.

That ought to take care of it.

I shouted “Stop,” “Desist” and “Whoa”—
But DG, he would not let go. *

DG continues to “improve” this blog with his Dad jokes.

I don’t know.

Yikes.

I don’t know.

Groan.

Yeah?

I don’t know how I am going to survive this. I hope it’s over soon.

*Sincere apologies to the late great Shel Silverstein for butchering his Yipiyuk.

DG has now taken over running this blog. Let’s see what he can do.

Hey, DG, what have you come up with?

Oh no. Come on! Dad jokes?

Noooo no no no. We are not doing Dad jokes.

Sigh.

I don’t know. What do you call a fake noodle?

Ahhhhh! That is so bad. Please stop.

No no no no.

Can we just stop now?

I don’t know. Where to pirates get their hooks?

Groan.

I think the hit counter just went down.

You got something better?

I didn’t start that argument, you did.

Ya, that was your fault.

Ya, that argument.

Darn tootin’.

No… wait…uh, no…. I mean… dang… you tricked me.

You do realize that I had to draw you with that smirk on your face, right?.

No, it doesn’t have to go on forever. In fact, I can use mathematical proof by induction to prove that I am right in all cases.

Mathematical induction is a method for proving that a statement P(n) is true for every natural number n that is greater than k, that is, that the infinitely many cases P(0),P(1),P(2),P(3), … all hold.

This is done by first proving a simple case, P(0), and then assuming that the case P(k) is true and proving that the next case P(k + 1) is also true.

The first step proves the statement is true for k = 0.

The second step proves that if the case holds for n = k then it must also hold for n = k + 1.

Those two steps prove that the statement holds for all natural numbers where n >= k.

Got it?

Try to keep up.

For the first step of the inductive proof we can prove that my assertion for k = 0, basically that I draw you, is obvious because if I haven’t drawn you, then there is no you to draw you.

For the second step, where you are drawing you, I can always demonstrate that I drew you drawing you, and if you add another you drawing you I can always assert that I drew you drawing you before you drew you since you are a cartoon character that I invented and draw.

Therefore, it is proven that no matter how many times you show a picture of you drawing you it is true that I always had to previously have drawn you doing that…. no matter how many times you try that trick.

There!

Waddaya think of that?