https://cafe.daum.net/GUJORON/Y8b3/6

ch6. theoretical confirmation

The theory is deductive and deductive is a homologous repetition, so it is unconditionally correct. 1+2=3=4-1=5-2=6-3... You can twist indefinitely, but it's still 3. However, words can be confused in the process of solving the theory with words. You have to speak well, but in that case, the sentence becomes longer. Any disciple of structural theory must have theoretical conviction. What if it goes against the theory? You should doubt the words that convey the facts. The theory has no errors.

The Gujo theory is that it is advantageous to use the addendum of the environment when other conditions are equal because the resilience of the balance intervenes. But the sentence is too long. The word unification is correct, defense wins, or minus is an intuitive expression to shorten the sentence. Defenses fighting at home are more likely to use the surrounding environment than attacks fighting in enemy territory. Fighting is basically advantageous in defense. However, neither side of the street fight is home, but neutral. Street fights allow surprise attacks, so the environment is used more in that the first bread sets the timing and location. This can be confusing. In both wars and short-term battles, attack is advantageous. This is because attacks use the environment more in terms of location and time. But usually, the war is prolonged and the defense wins eventually. If the attack wins, the border will be readjusted at a point where defense is advantageous, so defense will eventually be advantageous. Instead of obsessing over the word attack or defense, we should look at the essence of interaction with the environment. Who will be on your side for balance? Balance is on the balance side. Those who use the inertial force of balance are advantageous.

Black is advantageous in Go. This is scientifically proven. If two people with equal skills compete without addition, will they catch a flaw or a bag? Of course, the winning rate is high only when you catch a flaw. Since Black puts it first, while Black preoccupies an advantageous position, White attacks to take that position. Isn't it an attack because black puts it first? No. Putting a point on an empty checkerboard is not an attack. A bag trying to catch that point attacks. There may be confusion in language, but structural theory should be accepted as a structural term.

In baseball, bottom attacks are more advantageous than top attacks. This is because they fight over the opponent's score at the end of the ninth inning. In soccer, the home team has an advantage. This is because there is a trick to spray water on the ground. There is a home advantage. According to the military law, the siege battle said that the offense side should be 10 times the defense side to attack. The walls do the share of nine people. The defense using the terrain wins.

In history, there are many records of the attack's victory. It is an outcome theory that has nothing to do with Gujo theory. If the attack is advantageous, wouldn't everyone attack and the world be unified into one country? This is why World War II broke out. With the development of science, a large number of new weapons have emerged. Machine guns and fighter jets. He believed that he had to attack first to survive and attacked like crazy. Because defense is advantageous, there are 200 countries left on Earth. What about China? China has no large mountains and seas, so there is no structure to use for defense. China has a relatively advantageous attack. I've been robbed by barbarians for more than a thousand years. If the attack is advantageous, the countries merge and the country disappears. Borders are created at a point where defense is advantageous.

Attacks are advantageous in the island country. You have to run away to defend, but the island has no place to run away. When England comes in, where does Ireland run away and defend? In historical records, attacks often win. I'm confident that I'll win, so I'm sure I'll lose. Is there any fool to attack? In other words, it was not an equal condition in the first place. Napoleon and Alexander attacked because they had overwhelming skills. Except for such a capable person, structural theory is whether to hold flaws or white in a state of equal skills. It is right to choose defense under equal conditions. Foreman lost to Ali, Tyson lost to Holyfield, Pacquiao lost to Mayweather, and Marvin Hagler was also broken by Sugarrey Leonard. A player who is good at defense wins the big game.

When a spear and a shield fight, the spear wins. The spear is intertwined with the strength of the spear blade + the arm strength of the pitcher, but the shield has nothing to do with the arm strength of the shield. Since the Gujo is entanglement, in this case, the window structure is the Gujo. Which one do you put first? Chicken or eggs? Chicken is more intertwined with the surroundings. The chicken wins. The whole is always ahead of the part. The whole is more intertwined.

Subutei attacked 61 times and won all of them. The attack is winning. What if Subutei and Subutei stick together? Subutei, who defends, wins. Short-term, local, and limited matches are advantageous because the attacker sets the date and place. However, since the date and place were used, it does not violate the nature of the structural theory that the one who uses the environment more wins. If it flows into long-term, all-out, and all-out wars, the defense is more likely to use the environment. It seems contradictory at first glance for the first punch to win in the neutral zone and for the defense to win at home, but it is the same in that they earn cards to use the environment. Since history is the record of the winner, there is a considerable illusion of recording history mainly on the attack side's victory.