Yes (maybe?), but that lends no argument against Silas’ corollary.
If you cannot explain, then you do not understand.
Therefore: If you do understand, then you can explain.
If no one can understand, then the precedent in the above is false, meaning that we cannot give the consequent any truth value.
Current theme: default
Less Wrong (text)
Less Wrong (link)
Arrow keys: Next/previous image
Escape or click: Hide zoomed image
Space bar: Reset image size & position
Scroll to zoom in/out
(When zoomed in, drag to pan; double-click to close)
Keys shown in yellow (e.g., ]) are accesskeys, and require a browser-specific modifier key (or keys).
]
Keys shown in grey (e.g., ?) do not require any modifier keys.
?
Esc
h
f
a
m
v
c
r
q
t
u
o
,
.
/
s
n
e
;
Enter
[
\
k
i
l
=
-
0
′
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
→
↓
←
↑
Space
x
z
`
g
Yes (maybe?), but that lends no argument against Silas’ corollary.
If you cannot explain, then you do not understand.
Therefore: If you do understand, then you can explain.
If no one can understand, then the precedent in the above is false, meaning that we cannot give the consequent any truth value.