{"id":422,"date":"2026-06-23T10:10:11","date_gmt":"2026-06-23T10:10:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/tha.de\/honors\/2026\/?p=422"},"modified":"2026-06-23T16:31:16","modified_gmt":"2026-06-23T16:31:16","slug":"logic-in-everyday-life-and-mistakes-in-mathematics-technology-alone-doesnt-create-value","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/tha.de\/honors\/2026\/2026\/06\/23\/logic-in-everyday-life-and-mistakes-in-mathematics-technology-alone-doesnt-create-value\/","title":{"rendered":"Logic in Everyday Life and Mistakes in Mathematics & Technology Alone Doesn’t Create Value"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Blog: June 16th 2026<\/strong>
Lecturers:<\/strong>\u00a0Prof. Dr. Caroline Justen, Mathematics & Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Jana G\u00f6rmer-Redding, Computer Science
Authors:<\/strong> Julian Brune, Lora Kortes<\/p>\n\n\n\n


Veggies first, Ice Cream second?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Imagine your mother telling you: \u201cIf you eat your vegetables, then you will get ice cream.\u201d What would your thoughts be in this scenario?
Is it, yay Ice Cream! \ud83d\ude42 Or rather, I must eat the vegetables first? \ud83d\ude41
This is the scene, this week\u2019s honors seminar jumped right into, at the very beginning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first part of the seminar, led by Prof. Dr. Carolin Justen focused on logic in everyday life scenarios and how this kind of logic is also a part of mathematics. We started with opinions about the question mentioned above. Is the mother allowed to give her daughter ice cream even if she didn\u2019t eat her veggies? Different views emerged. Some of us argued that it was not specified when the vegetables had to be eaten or that the statement didn\u2019t specify what would happen if the girl wouldn\u2019t eat the vegetables. This highlighted the difference between different perspectives in everyday life. In this case, one might be logical one pedagogical.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the following we focused on the logical structure behind the vegetables and the ice cream:
If A then B:       (A \u21d2 B)
Resulting from our natural way of speaking is the language trap:
\u201cIf and only if\u201d which we often tend to interpret as an equivalence, often leads to mistakes in mathematics.
If A then B and if B then A:    (A \u21d0\u21d2 B)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Understanding Definitions: succeeding and failing<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second example we talked about was the definition of upper triangular matrices. On their whiteboards each group had to write examples of upper triangular matrices and decide whether they understood the definition correctly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The name \u201cupper triangular matrix\u201d comes from the triangular region in the matrix, but the actual definition is that all entries below the main diagonal are zero. Here our language confuses us again.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Next, we played a card game aiming at checking logical rules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The rule was:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIf one side of the card shows an even number, then the other side of the card is blue.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We were given several cards and had to determine the minimum number of cards that needed to be turned over to verify whether the rule was true.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our group decided on two cards, but we failed and discovered our answer was incorrect. We assumed that blue cards must have even numbers and that even numbers must have blue backs. However, we fell right into the language trap that we identified earlier.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although we made a mistake, we took it with a laugh.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Learning by having fun<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A highlight of the lecture (as it often is) was the Kahoot Quiz. Everyone was eager to participate and think about different logical questions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The questions ranged from:
\u201cWhat can you conclude from the fact that tomorrow is the first day of the month?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022             Today is Tuesday<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022             Today is the 31st<\/sup> of the month<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022             Logically nothing<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022             Today is the last day of a month<\/p>\n\n\n\n

to:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIf x = 4, then x\u00b2 = 16.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This statement is correct. However, the reverse implication is not necessarily true because x could also be \u22124.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the end the winners of the Kahoot quiz received sweets which was a very pleasant reward for the glorious winners:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The seminar demonstrated in a fun and playful way how logical implications can differ from everyday language and how easily assumptions can lead to mistakes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Technology Alone Doesn’t Create Value<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

Lecturer:<\/strong> Prof. Dr. Jana G\u00f6rmer-Redding<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second part of the seminar focused on the topic of artificial intelligence which nowadays is all around us.

Hardly a day goes by without hearing about a new AI model, another breakthrough, or predictions about how AI will change our future. Going into this week’s Honors Seminar, we expected to learn about exactly that. Instead, we left with a completely different takeaway:
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“Technology alone does not create value.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At first, this sentence almost sounded wrong. After all, we are surrounded by headlines telling us that artificial intelligence is changing everything. New AI models appear almost weekly, companies are investing billions, and ChatGPT became the fastest-growing consumer application in history. So how could technology not<\/em> create value?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That question stayed with us throughout this week’s Honors Seminar.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Faster, Bigger, Better?<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The lecture started with a series of numbers that were hard to ignore. It took the telephone 27 years to reach one million users. Netflix needed three and a half years. ChatGPT? Only five days<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Looking at these numbers made one thing very clear: innovation is no longer moving quickly\u2014it is accelerating.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This also explains why today’s most valuable companies are almost all technology companies. NVIDIA, Microsoft, Apple, Alphabet, Amazon and Meta dominate global markets because they build digital products that can scale almost instantly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

But then the lecture took an unexpected turn.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Technology Isn’t the Goal<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

One slide consisted of only a few boxes connected by arrows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Technology \u2192 Strategy \u2192 Business Model \u2192 Customer Value<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Simple.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet probably the most important slide of the afternoon.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It challenged the idea that simply using AI automatically creates innovation. Instead, technology is only the starting point. Without a clear strategy and a business model that solves an actual problem, even the smartest AI remains just another impressive piece of software.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We immediately started thinking about how often companies advertise “AI-powered” products without ever explaining what problem they actually solve.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not Everything That Can Be Generated Should Be<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

This became even more obvious during the discussion about AI Slop<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With generative AI becoming accessible to almost everyone, producing text, images and videos has never been easier. But quantity doesn’t necessarily mean quality. The internet is increasingly flooded with automatically generated content that nobody really asked for.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The discussion shifted from Can AI create this?<\/em> to a much more interesting question:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Should it?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

That small change in perspective felt like one of the biggest takeaways of the session.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Failing Forward<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Since this semester is all about Failing Forward<\/em>, we naturally ended up talking about rapid prototyping.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instead of spending months trying to build the perfect product, companies should develop an early prototype, gather feedback, improve it, and repeat the process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What we liked about this idea is that it completely changes how mistakes are viewed. A prototype is expected to be imperfect. Every mistake becomes information that helps create a better solution later on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Looking back at previous seminar sessions, we realized that this idea connects surprisingly well with many topics we have already discussed. Whether it was construction defects, cultural attitudes towards mistakes, or Lean Management, the message is remarkably similar: mistakes become valuable once we learn from them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our Takeaway<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Before this lecture, many of us associated innovation mainly with new technologies. Afterwards, we left with a different perspective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Technology is becoming increasingly accessible. What is much harder to copy is a good idea, a real customer need, and the courage to test that idea before it is perfect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Maybe that is why Prof. G\u00f6rmer-Redding’s opening statement stayed with us until the very end.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Technology alone does not create value.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

People do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Now we’d like to hear from you:<\/strong> Have you ever used a piece of technology that seemed incredibly innovative at first but turned out to solve a problem nobody really had? Or have you experienced the opposite\u2014a surprisingly simple idea that created real value? Let us know in the comments!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Blog: June 16th 2026Lecturers:\u00a0Prof. Dr. Caroline Justen, Mathematics & Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Jana G\u00f6rmer-Redding, Computer ScienceAuthors: Julian Brune, Lora Kortes Veggies first, Ice Cream second? Imagine your mother telling you: \u201cIf you eat your vegetables, then you will get ice cream.\u201d What would your thoughts be in this scenario?Is it, yay Ice Cream! \ud83d\ude42 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":450,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-422","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/tha.de\/honors\/2026\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/422","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/tha.de\/honors\/2026\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/tha.de\/honors\/2026\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tha.de\/honors\/2026\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tha.de\/honors\/2026\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=422"}],"version-history":[{"count":11,"href":"https:\/\/tha.de\/honors\/2026\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/422\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":455,"href":"https:\/\/tha.de\/honors\/2026\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/422\/revisions\/455"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tha.de\/honors\/2026\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/450"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/tha.de\/honors\/2026\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=422"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tha.de\/honors\/2026\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=422"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tha.de\/honors\/2026\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=422"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}