By Noah Skinner
Editor: Alloe Mak

My therapist told me I emotionally repress myself. I don’t agree. I’m fully in tune with myself—I just choose not to waste my time acting soft. I can even demonstrate it in mathematical fact:

Symbol Glossary:
∀: for all
∈: in/belongs to
∃: there exists some
↔: if and only if
¬: not
∋: such that
→: implies

Let E represent the set of all of the emotions I have ever felt.

Let S(n) represent the proposition that I can maturely recognise and process a given emotion n.

We wish to prove the proposition ∀n∈E[S(n)]. That is, for all emotions I have felt, I have maturely processed them.

First we must establish a definition for S(n), so that we can evaluate if a given n∈E satisfies S(n). We can agree that an emotion n has been maturely recognised and processed if I have undergone an experience e_n that elicits n, and that experience had a positive outcome, a proposition we can call P(e_n). Connecting this with S(n), it is the case that S(n) is the property ∃e_n[P(e_n)]. Formally, we can say that:

∀n∈E∃e_n[P(e_n)] 

The first barrier to overcome is to simply prove that ∀n∈E[∃e_n]. That is, for every emotion I have felt, I have undergone a situation that elicits that emotion. This property is very obvious in plain words, since you have felt an emotion if and only if you have had an experience with it, but mathematical rigour demands it be demonstrated factually. To do this, let us consider the following:

The aforementioned equivalence: n∈E↔e_n

The inverse of our proposition: ∃n∈E[¬∃e_n]

To put the inverse in standard terms, there exists some emotion that I have felt, where I have never had an experience that has elicited it. These two statements contradict each other, since our (known to be true) equivalence dictates that it is not possible to have felt an emotion without an experience having provoked it. Now is also a good time to note that I have defined E as the set of all emotions that I have felt since I believe that there are too many possible emotions to be worth preparing yourself for a million situations that may never occur (Editor’s note: one day the author will experience the loss of a loved one for the first time and they will not be equipped to handle it).

Now that we have proven the proposition ∀n∈E[∃e_n], all that remains is to prove that all of the relevant experiences have ended positively. Let N be the set containing one positive experience for each emotion. N can be formally defined as N = {e_n | ∀n∈E[e_n∋P(e_n)]}. We can prove the aforementioned by showing that all experiences in N have ended positively, or ∀e_n∈N[P(e_n)]. Let us consider the inverse:

∃e_n∈N[¬P(e_n)]

We can show that this is a contradiction by considering that having had a negative experience implies that I suffered grave consequences, which we shall call g_e. This implication can be written as ¬P(e_n)→g_e. We can prove this statement if we prove the contrapositive, which proposes that if I did not suffer grave consequences, then the experience was positive, notated as:

¬g_e→P(e_n)

This is easy to prove. Simply put, if I had suffered grave consequences as a result of any emotional experience, I would know. Some examples to help this notion stick: When I went out with someone who always said “I’m fine” when they certainly weren’t, I felt anxious. If I had suffered grave consequences I would be a distraught paranoiac who doesn’t trust anyone, but instead, I pretend my loved ones don’t exist outside of my field of view so that I don’t feel stressed. When I forced myself to play competitive sports through a debilitating back injury and the worst depressive episode of my life, I felt angry at myself for never being healthy enough to compete. If I had suffered grave consequences I would be dead at my own hands, but instead, I discovered that I’m not angry when I’m drunk. When I overdosed in my high school computer lab, I felt a deep shame. If I had suffered grave consequences I would have dropped out, but instead, I woke up in the hospital, shook it off, and went back to school the next day, staring at the ground so I wouldn’t have to see the disapproving stares and whispers. I have never suffered grave consequences. It’s really never been all that bad.

Having demonstrated that ¬g_e→P(e_n) holds true for all g_e, we have that ∃e_n∈N[¬P(e_n)] is a contradiction, since there is no e_n such that P(e_n) is false. Having set off a domino chain of validations, we have it now that every emotional experience I have undergone has had no grave consequences, and thus has ended positively, with a positive experience for each emotion proving that I can process each of those emotions maturely, thus proving that I do not overly rationalise my emotions. QED

Footnote: I am aware that this proof is littered with logical holes and false justifications. Please do not point them out. I am not ready to process the criticism.