Quote:
Mary Malmros wrote:
For me, I'd say it's more like an inductive proof. Most people only ever learn deductive reasoning: A leads to B, B leads to C, and so on. But there's also this thing called inductive reasoning, where you start by assuming that what you want to prove is so...then prove a base case...then prove that if the base case is true for x, it's also true for x+1. Aikido is like that: I see someone doing something, I can't see how they're doing it (I can't deduce it)...but I can see that it is being done. So the conclusion is true, I just don't know (yet) how to get from here to there. And that's where I have to start out by "proving" (on the mat, the hard way) that the base case is true...and then it's a long, long series of "proving" that if it's true for x, it's also true for x+1.

I think thst is a good way to deduce things. However, if x+1 equals something for you that doesn't mean that x+1 equals the same thing for someone else because Aikido is not math.