May 21, 2025

everything is done ad hoc, even this post.

Proving, or maybe not, that every activity is done ad hoc.

Recently, I got myself an used ThinkPad T14 Gen2a. And I've been fiddling with it ever since. I had to revamp my whole workflow / workspace around it, which was obviously expected, but poor old me fell into Planning Fallacy and did not apprehend it. So, I ended up with a unproductive week (in the sense of "work").

I had to do a lot of ad hoc scripting, ad hoc cable management and make an ad hoc laptop docking station made of cardboard boxes. Everything was spontaneous, nothing was planned. But everything resulted in a complacent Nibir and a doable workflow.

This made me think: every activity that a human can do, is done ad hoc.

To verify this conjecture, we have to dive deeper into the semantics of the phrase "ad hoc" and also see if some real life scenarios imply such a thing.

Semantics #

The phrase ad hoc shows two meanings;

1. adverb:
   • when necessary or needed.
2. adjective:
   • created or done for a particular purpose as necessary.

Which suggest that doing something "ad hoc" is to fulfill a particular necessity, as required.

Here are some examples of such instances:

• I bought the ThinkPad ad hoc to give Mom her laptop back.
• I brought my water bottle ad hoc to quench my thirst.
• I turned on the lights ad hoc so that I can see other things in the dark room.

But giving certain examples doesn't prove that everything is done ad hoc. I want to prove this more formally, reducing ambiguity as much as possible.

Formal Proof #

I am claiming that everything (i.e., every activity that can be done by a human being) is done ad hoc.

So, let $x$ denote any activity. And let $A(x)$ be the property of "being done ad hoc".

The claim, expressed in logical notation, is:

(for all $x$, $A(x)$ holds true).

To prove this, we must show that its negation is false.

Therefore...

(there exists an activity $x$ such that $A(x)$ doesn't hold true).

...should be shown false.

But we are left with a problem. We need to show that such an activity does not exist, which means analysing every activity for the property. The path to the solution becomes circular.

Even with our vast reservoir of experience or knowledge, we cannot, pragmatically, do that.

But instead, we can prove that our initial assumption ($\mathrm{\forall }x[A(x)]$) is false by finding a counter-example. Which will prove that not everything is done ad hoc. And that counterexample is .....

I cannot find any. Maybe because I am biased. Maybe the premises of the proof are shaky and cannot be built upon. Maybe I failed as a mathematician and as a philosopher.

Noticing fallacy #

I notice something shady in the Semantics part. Maybe this necessity I speak off should be universal, not personal. And that I am turning some personal data to prove something universal. This suggests that I am a buffoon and need to fix this mess.

Very soon. Let me know if you prove this before I do.