Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JicJac · 11-16-2004, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueskyboris

JJ,
Whether or not an entity is distinguisable from another entity by the human eye has nothing to do with the ability to create a set. I can created a million "1s", put them into a set in a specific order {million 1s in BSB order}, shake the 1s inside my 1s set as if I am making a yummy mixed drink, and still have all the same 1s in my set. ONLY THE ORDERING HAS CHANGED. The set still exists with the same 1s. Moreover, if I do not shake my 1s set like I am making a yummy mixed drink, I can easily make subsets based on my ordering. Finally, entities that are identical can be labeled.

Visual Aid.....

Kalkin · 11-16-2004, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Jones

.. I wonder why you said that. The philosophy that was in my posts was new and controversial.

Much like the philosophy of Gene Ray.

Quote:

And really, isn't that the reason why you wanted to move them?

Well, sort of. The real reason was that your ideas were opposed to the secret objectives of the EAC.

Quote:

I think I have stumbled across a cell of unimaginative, possibly retired, opinionated philosophers.

See, halfway to exposing the truth already!

muidiri · 11-17-2004, 08:48 AM

John Jones, there seems to be a consensus that your posts are unclear and somewhat incosequential. It is not some cinspiracy against you... Perhaps you have a valid point, and simply need to brush up on your presentation technique. Consider reading through several of the posts in the Philosophy forum, rephrasing your point into a more formalized method, allow an avenue of discussion, and try again.

As far as I can tell, most your points are based on a misunderstanding of mathematical concepts. If you are open to correction of these ideas, then we can have meaningful discourse. If you insist that all of mathematics is wrong, and your "new and improved" math is the only correct way... then I can refer you to a psychologist for discussion of your megalomania

The point here is that sometimes it is not what you are saying, but the way you are saying it. Having a debate is a two way street, and you must accept the possibility that your presented stance will be shown to be wrong, or will garner the consensus of wrongness from its observers. This does not necessarily show your concept to be incorrect, merely the presentation of it.

Thus far, your presentations (countability, heap, sets) have not been very good. I am not sure if you are not a native english speaker - perhaps this is hindering your communication? If this is the case, kindly tell us so, and we will attempt to be more considerate.

This is an interesting and fun board, and I enjoy all of the discussions here. I think that you might also enjoy them. Simply spend some time getting used to the format, and learn to work within the confines of the rules. Each forum has a sticky at the top which clearly states the rules for that forum. Each forum is heavily moderated, and each has a different set of moderators. Read the stickies and be sure you understand the rules. There is no reason for you to be irritated that your posts got moved - simply try again.

Blueskyboris · 11-17-2004, 10:52 AM

Locwip loves larger lips looping lyrics, Lambada. Lambs live large less lambchops lapse life. Laputa. Laputa. Laputa. Locwhip. Locwhip. Locwhip. Locwhip lashes ladies lumbering lazily, laterally laving laughter. Lenin's Laws lacked love. Lazarus, lame layman leading lecherous leaders laping lectin living large. Lo! Lobefin! Lo! Livorno! Lo! Liverwurst! Lo! Loquacious lophophore legging lubriciously! Lo! Locwip! Locking lukewarm lumber, lubricating loving lunatic Luxembourgers.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-17-2004, 08:48 AM	#23
muidiri Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Pacific Northwest Posts: 10,066	John Jones, there seems to be a consensus that your posts are unclear and somewhat incosequential. It is not some cinspiracy against you... Perhaps you have a valid point, and simply need to brush up on your presentation technique. Consider reading through several of the posts in the Philosophy forum, rephrasing your point into a more formalized method, allow an avenue of discussion, and try again. As far as I can tell, most your points are based on a misunderstanding of mathematical concepts. If you are open to correction of these ideas, then we can have meaningful discourse. If you insist that all of mathematics is wrong, and your "new and improved" math is the only correct way... then I can refer you to a psychologist for discussion of your megalomania The point here is that sometimes it is not what you are saying, but the way you are saying it. Having a debate is a two way street, and you must accept the possibility that your presented stance will be shown to be wrong, or will garner the consensus of wrongness from its observers. This does not necessarily show your concept to be incorrect, merely the presentation of it. Thus far, your presentations (countability, heap, sets) have not been very good. I am not sure if you are not a native english speaker - perhaps this is hindering your communication? If this is the case, kindly tell us so, and we will attempt to be more considerate. This is an interesting and fun board, and I enjoy all of the discussions here. I think that you might also enjoy them. Simply spend some time getting used to the format, and learn to work within the confines of the rules. Each forum has a sticky at the top which clearly states the rules for that forum. Each forum is heavily moderated, and each has a different set of moderators. Read the stickies and be sure you understand the rules. There is no reason for you to be irritated that your posts got moved - simply try again.

11-17-2004, 10:52 AM	#24
Blueskyboris Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Inside a Cheeseburger Posts: 5,374	Locwip loves larger lips looping lyrics, Lambada. Lambs live large less lambchops lapse life. Laputa. Laputa. Laputa. Locwhip. Locwhip. Locwhip. Locwhip lashes ladies lumbering lazily, laterally laving laughter. Lenin's Laws lacked love. Lazarus, lame layman leading lecherous leaders laping lectin living large. Lo! Lobefin! Lo! Livorno! Lo! Liverwurst! Lo! Loquacious lophophore legging lubriciously! Lo! Locwip! Locking lukewarm lumber, lubricating loving lunatic Luxembourgers.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.