Question

$\textbf{Theorem:}$ $\textsf{Everyone\: is\: not\: perfect}$


$\textsf{Proof:}$
(Some assumptions to be made considering cases, mentioned below)

You can prove that it does not make sense to say of anyone that they are perfect

you can prove that it does not make sense to say of anyone that they are perfect


Let us take as the
definition of perfect:
An object A is perfect if there is no conceivable object B which, if it were to
exist.Anybody who claims that right is either perfect, or - much more likely - seriously

disturbed.

But suppose there is a metric B which you and your accuser agree. you can prove that
the concept of perfection is selfcontradictory, would be better than A. Note that this requires a

metric of betterness.
For our purposes, any consistent metric will do. We shall call it the B
function. We require B to be such that if B(X) > B(Y), and B(Y) > B(Z), then B(X) > B(Z).

Let us
assume that person X is perfect. In other words, it is categorically not possible that there is
another person Y, such that B(Y) > B(X). This is trivially true if everybody has the same value of B.
Then everybody is perfect, just the way they are.

So the first thing you should ask of anybody

who calls you imperfect is “What gives you the right to determine a metric of betterness which

discriminates against me?” (Note that it is no accident that the devil’s chief function is that of

accuser). However, you can’t learn without making mistakes. Y might be better today, but less
adaptable to the future, by virtue of having learned less. If you take the future into account, X is
better. You cannot define a metric of betterness which at the same time is 100% concerned with
the current situation and 100% concerned with the future. People who are overly concerned with
perfection are blind to the future.Then it is evident that there is an upper limit to B, say U. Then
B(X) = U.This means that X never makes mistakes, ever. Because otherwise we could conceive of
some Y just like X, making one less mistake and therefore being better than X.

Let us take as the
definition of perfect:
An object A is perfect if there is no conceivable object B which, if it were to
exist.Anybody who claims that right is either perfect, or - much more likely - seriously

disturbed.

But suppose there is a metric B which you and your accuser agree. you can prove that
the concept of perfection is selfcontradictory, would be better than A. Note that this requires a

metric of betterness.
For our purposes, any consistent metric will do. We shall call it the B
function. We require B to be such that if B(X) > B(Y), and B(Y) > B(Z), then B(X) > B(Z).

Let us
assume that person X is perfect. In other words, it is categorically not possible that there is
another person Y, such that B(Y) > B(X). This is trivially true if everybody has the same value of B.
Then everybody is perfect, just the way they are.

So the first thing you should ask of anybody

who calls you imperfect is “What gives you the right to determine a metric of betterness which

discriminates against me?” (Note that it is no accident that the devil’s chief function is that of

accuser). However, you can’t learn without making mistakes. Y might be better today, but less
adaptable to the future, by virtue of having learned less. If you take the future into account, X is
better. You cannot define a metric of betterness which at the same time is 100% concerned with
the current situation and 100% concerned with the future. People who are overly concerned with
perfection are blind to the future.Then it is evident that there is an upper limit to B, say U. Then
B(X) = U.This means that X never makes mistakes, ever. Because otherwise we could conceive of
some Y just like X, making one less mistake and therefore being better than X.
​

Answer 1

Answer:

kya Likha h Bhai Kitna, time waste kiya..

Answer 2

Answer:

Yai konsi problem hai , go and ask this problem to your teacher to solve it.