I receive and I meet the justified demands of the world
Maurone update on new intellectual adventures of Phabbbiu ...
------------------------------------------------ -------------
We want to give him some stuff better than it currently takes?
want blogggg so please post it to your 'to leave to posterity and the public ridicule
this beautiful pearl of
fabbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbiooooooooooooooooo?
everything starts from here: from my simple and crude email
2 lines (see the link to see what I mean)
symbol made by the three red dots and 'what you're looking for
define "definition"?
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=886
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Fabio Lanza
Date : Jul 16, 2007 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: Nice dueobio
this cartoon. Very often the jokes are based on the ambiguity of language
and you want to read almost infinitely
pedantic here it is.
The first equation is either a definition or a theorem. From the context
a definition would seem so that the next two lines are connected to the first through
theorem. So those would be curved lines of
signs of involvement.
The definitions are not set,, so it can not be false or true
, but can be bad definitions, meaning they can
contradict some other true statements since they are such, that
other axioms. Now, the first line is a good definition if the denominator is nonzero
designed similarly to a number. The symbol used in the following
seems more an empty set, but the same could give the sense of
quotient set, the "denominator"
should be an equivalence relation, however, a report
equivalence is a relationship, so it should be
a subset of some Cartesian product, the empty set is always
subset of any set, but unfortunately can not be
a report just because it has elements to be linked;
MATTER therefore can not be even the empty set and
any evidence that leads to the negation of what exists or is wrong or
a contradiction, so the definition is a poor definition and
back again.
Even accepting that the implication between the first and second line
is simple and does not double, even if we multiply this State to State for
MATTER if this is different from zero to the report you get is
still be analyzed, if it is equal to zero is obviously going to force the value
MIND also for the annulment of the law
product, which says that if at least one of the factors is zero then
the product is zero. Similar arguments for the transition between the second and third row
, except that the definition is the first
.
Now if we want the three lines, or definitions that are set forth,
speak of the same objects, then all three must not be null
. In particular, because they appear to MATTER and PROCASTINATION
denominator, MIND and also for the third row.
symbol before IF no sense of involvement, but at most
separator. The red symbol with the three points does not mean less or equal to
definition but "implies" in the sense of a theorem and then
may be an unnecessary duplication of simple arrows used above. Incidentally
is a symbol of the '30s was the first widely used in
Anglo-Saxon literature. It 'clearly a symbol
unfortunate first of all because it would be preferable to a symmetrical and asymmetrical
distinguishing a visual argument hypothesis. Then he
symbolism that is not transparent. Today, thanks to the work of Peano, Hilbert and Bourbaki
and surprising application to formal languages \u200b\u200bsuch as programming we
Fortunately, a lot more symbolism
efficient and transparent.
However I did laugh a lot!
PS: you make traps for my follies. Damn!
