chair man punch

You cannot convince the person of such a thing because it is false. A and Y are related. Or to be more exact, they WERE related in the past. Perhaps it's not true anymore, perhaps the punching is not triggered anymore or is replaced by kicking or by kissing, or perhaps it is triggered by a different chair now, but none of that matters. Chair-punching happened for an entire year and therefore it is logical to draw a link between the chair and the punch. It would insult the person very much if you were to claim that they came to an incorrect conclusion. Their conclusion was very much correct. Perhaps you want to convince the person that A and Y are no longer related, that sitting in the chair will no longer lead to punching. That is possible. The first step is to agree with them. You need to acknowledged that the person's personal experience makes it particularly hard to believe that the chair and the punching are no longer related.

>>18606290
Much logik here.

>>18606218
>I mean by experience, he thinks that A and Y are related. he learned that the hard way. But in fact they are not.

Mathematically, they are related. Unless there is an additional variable that you haven't mentioned then whenever this individual (I) is combined with the chair (Y) then the result is the punch (A). Y + I = A. If the punch is considered a constant then, mathematically, A is as reliably a mathematic value as any number. A holds a static value that does not change or waver except when introduced to the two variables, A and Y. The two are inexorably related in the context of this specific equation. If we start bringing in more chairs, more individuals or more actions that occur as a result of sitting on the chairs then we can argue the correlation vs. causation of these events but in this incident they are related, yes.

>>18606218
Goond questions.