Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Unicornian Mathematics, Logic, and Whatever

4 views

Skip to first unread message

Zero

unread,

Dec 1, 2005, 2:28:39 PM12/1/05

Unicornian Mathematics, Logic, and Whatever

--------------------- How flawed is your "logic"? ---------------------

IF 0 + 1 = 1

AND 1 + 1 = 2
AND 10 + 1 = 11
AND 11 + 2 = 20

THEN 1 + 2 = 10 is:

a] True
b] False
c] Unable to Determine
d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y

------------------------------ FREE CLUE ------------------------------

Don't bother making the false assumption
that the given assumptions are false.

---------------------------- S P O I L E R ----------------------------

The correct answer is: [a] True -- probably
(but only if you can explain it logically)

Because even a monkey has a 25% chance of picking the right answer.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

but using classical logic presents a big problem, no?

shall we try another? ok...

--------------------- How flawed is your "logic"? ---------------------

IF 0 + 1 = 1

AND 1 + 1 = 2
AND 10 + 1 = 11
AND 11 + 2 = 20

THEN 1 + 2 = 3 is:

a] True
b] False
c] Unable to Determine
d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y

------------------------------ FREE CLUE ------------------------------

Don't bother making the false assumption
that the given assumptions are false.

---------------------------- S P O I L E R ----------------------------

The correct answer is: [b] False -- probably
(but only if you can explain it logically)

Because even a monkey has a 25% chance of picking the right answer.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

but using classical logic presents big a problem, no?

shall we try another? ok...

--------------------- How flawed is your "logic"? ---------------------

IF 0 + 1 = 1

AND 1 + 1 = 2
AND 10 + 1 = 11
AND 1 + 2 = 10

THEN 11 + 2 = 20 is:

a] True
b] False
c] Unable to Determine
d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y

------------------------------ FREE CLUE ------------------------------

Don't bother making the false assumption
that the given assumptions are false.

---------------------------- S P O I L E R ----------------------------

The correct answer is: [a] True -- probably
(but only if you can explain it logically)

Because even a monkey has a 25% chance of picking the right answer.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

golly gee.

i wonder if Dr. Zen will ever get around to answering thAT sublimely
humorous thought-provoking Unicornian Logic post. see also:

Re: Unicornian Mathematics + Unicornian Logic = Logical...

0zju-12 http://tinyurl.com/cokev

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/36b5851746db866b

where you'll find Zen is apparently manifesting as the Bob Woodward
of Mathematics and Logic (in not disclosing his super duper secret
source for the "third-party judge" that he's been lying about --
while at the same time having the gall to accuse moi of lying
instead) -- as well as avoiding some rather interesting Base Three
Mathematical conundrums (Zen's hopelessly illogical contradictions).

here's a bit more on that Zen-running-home-to-mommy thinger:

lying thru ones' fat (or skinny) teeth

0zjy-00 http://tinyurl.com/dq2ws

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/e1325eee8136124f

if not math and logic, at least Zen's perceptive and effectively
expressive on other topics:

"...and our disaster plans run a little deeper than
scratching our arses and wondering whether there's
something we can bomb to make things better"
-- Dr. Zen
http://tinyurl.com/8wn43

oh well. nobody's perfect, right?

thank God. cha' ching!

(time to order a nice healthy slice of peach pie)

i'll bet he's been burning the candle at both ends looking for
some kind of new goalpost to move on THAT Base Three baby, aye?

poor fella.

but no amount of BPS research is gonna get his arse out of THAT sling.

inexorable, indeed.

-$Zero... Cha'Ching!...

shall we try another? ok...

--------------------- How flawed is your "logic"? ---------------------

IF 3 + 3 = 5
AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
AND 3 > 2
THEN 2 + 2 = 5 is:

a] True
b] False
c] Unable to Determine
d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y

------------------------------ FREE CLUE ------------------------------

Don't bother making the false assumption
that the given assumptions are false.

---------------------------- S P O I L E R ----------------------------

The correct answer is: [a] True -- probably
(but only if you can explain it logically)

Because even a monkey has a 25% chance of picking the right answer.

-------------- Introducing Unicornian Mathematics/Logic: --------------

Base Two

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Base Three

0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1
1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0
1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2
0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2

Base Four

0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2
1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1
1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0

Base Ten

0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0
1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9
1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1
2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0

"Odd and Even is the binary nature of infinity."
-- $Zero...

Base Infinity

0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1

------------------------------- 0zk3-00 -------------------------------

Dr Zen

unread,

Dec 1, 2005, 11:32:23 PM12/1/05

With no regard for personal safety or the comfort of others, the Great
"Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> blathered:

>Unicornian Mathematics, Logic, and Whatever
>
>
>--------------------- How flawed is your "logic"? ---------------------
>
> IF 0 + 1 = 1
>
> AND 1 + 1 = 2
> AND 10 + 1 = 11
> AND 11 + 2 = 20
>
> THEN 1 + 2 = 10 is:
>
> a] True
> b] False
> c] Unable to Determine
> d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
>

True.

>------------------------------ FREE CLUE ------------------------------
>
> Don't bother making the false assumption
> that the given assumptions are false.

They aren't.

>
>---------------------------- S P O I L E R ----------------------------
>
> The correct answer is: [a] True -- probably
> (but only if you can explain it logically)

It's true whether you can explain it or not.

>
> Because even a monkey has a 25% chance of picking the right answer.

Most monkeys would be easier to train.

>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>but using classical logic presents a big problem, no?

No.

>
>shall we try another? ok...
>
>
>
>--------------------- How flawed is your "logic"? ---------------------
>
> IF 0 + 1 = 1
>
> AND 1 + 1 = 2
> AND 10 + 1 = 11
> AND 11 + 2 = 20
>
> THEN 1 + 2 = 3 is:
>
> a] True
> b] False
> c] Unable to Determine
> d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y

You've spent a long time coming up with this one, haven't you?

>
>------------------------------ FREE CLUE ------------------------------
>
> Don't bother making the false assumption
> that the given assumptions are false.
>
>---------------------------- S P O I L E R ----------------------------
>
> The correct answer is: [b] False -- probably
> (but only if you can explain it logically)

No.

>
> Because even a monkey has a 25% chance of picking the right answer.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>but using classical logic presents big a problem, no?
>
>shall we try another? ok...
>
>
>
>
>--------------------- How flawed is your "logic"? ---------------------
>
> IF 0 + 1 = 1
>
> AND 1 + 1 = 2
> AND 10 + 1 = 11
> AND 1 + 2 = 10
>
> THEN 11 + 2 = 20 is:
>
> a] True
> b] False
> c] Unable to Determine
> d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
>
>------------------------------ FREE CLUE ------------------------------
>
> Don't bother making the false assumption
> that the given assumptions are false.
>
>---------------------------- S P O I L E R ----------------------------
>
> The correct answer is: [a] True -- probably
> (but only if you can explain it logically)

True, whether you can explain it or not.

>
> Because even a monkey has a 25% chance of picking the right answer.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>golly gee.
>
>i wonder if Dr. Zen will ever get around to answering thAT sublimely
>humorous thought-provoking Unicornian Logic post. see also:

Yes, I answered it.

>
>
> Re: Unicornian Mathematics + Unicornian Logic = Logical...
>
> 0zju-12 http://tinyurl.com/cokev
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/36b5851746db866b
>
>
>where you'll find Zen is apparently manifesting as the Bob Woodward
>of Mathematics and Logic (in not disclosing his super duper secret
>source for the "third-party judge" that he's been lying about --
>while at the same time having the gall to accuse moi of lying
>instead) -- as well as avoiding some rather interesting Base Three
>Mathematical conundrums (Zen's hopelessly illogical contradictions).

You do not need to know anything about bases to work out whether your
examples are true.

>
>
>here's a bit more on that Zen-running-home-to-mommy thinger:
>
> lying thru ones' fat (or skinny) teeth
>

one's.

> 0zjy-00 http://tinyurl.com/dq2ws
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/e1325eee8136124f
>
>
>if not math and logic, at least Zen's perceptive and effectively
>expressive on other topics:
>
>
> "...and our disaster plans run a little deeper than
> scratching our arses and wondering whether there's
> something we can bomb to make things better"
> -- Dr. Zen
> http://tinyurl.com/8wn43
>
>
>oh well. nobody's perfect, right?
>
>thank God. cha' ching!
>
>(time to order a nice healthy slice of peach pie)

Sure it isn't squirrel pie?

>
>i'll bet he's been burning the candle at both ends looking for
>some kind of new goalpost to move on THAT Base Three baby, aye?

You do not need to know anything about bases to work out whether your
arguments above are sound.

>
>poor fella.
>
>but no amount of BPS research is gonna get his arse out of THAT sling.
>
>inexorable, indeed.
>
>
>-$Zero... Cha'Ching!...
>
>
>shall we try another? ok...
>
>
>--------------------- How flawed is your "logic"? ---------------------
>
> IF 3 + 3 = 5
> AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
> AND 3 > 2

No.

> THEN 2 + 2 = 5 is:
>
> a] True
> b] False
> c] Unable to Determine
> d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y

True. Absolutely any conclusion you like is true.

>
>------------------------------ FREE CLUE ------------------------------
>
> Don't bother making the false assumption
> that the given assumptions are false.
>
>---------------------------- S P O I L E R ----------------------------
>
> The correct answer is: [a] True -- probably
> (but only if you can explain it logically)

Absolutely any conclusion you like is true, so this one is true.

2 + 2 != 5 is also true.

As is 5 + 5 = 2.

>
> Because even a monkey has a 25% chance of picking the right answer.
>
>-------------- Introducing Unicornian Mathematics/Logic: --------------
>
>Base Two
>
>0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
> 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
>1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
>
>Base Three
>
>0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1
> 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0
>1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2
> 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2
>
>Base Four
>
>0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2
> 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1
>1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
> 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0
>
>Base Ten
>
>0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0
> 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9
>1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1
> 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0
>
>
> "Odd and Even is the binary nature of infinity."
> -- $Zero...

No.

>
>
>Base Infinity

Nope.

>
>0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
> 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
>0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
> 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1

Dr Zen
"But let me tell you that I never planned
to let go of the hand that has been
clinging by its thick country skin
to my yellow country teeth" -- Ounsworth
http://gollyg.blogspot.com

Zero

unread,

Dec 2, 2005, 5:09:44 AM12/2/05

Re: Unicornian Mathematics, Logic, and Whatever

Dr Zen wrote:
>
> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> blathered:

[...]

> > IF 0 + 1 = 1
> >
> > AND 1 + 1 = 2
> > AND 10 + 1 = 11
> > AND 11 + 2 = 20
> >
> > THEN 1 + 2 = 10 is:
> >
> > a] True
> > b] False
> > c] Unable to Determine
> > d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
>
> True.

show your work, or get behind the monkey (and the squirrel).

> >Don't bother making the false assumption
> >that the given assumptions are false.
>
> They aren't.

SYW,OGBTM(ATS)

try logical substitution, if you think it will help. LOL.

> >The correct answer is: [a] True -- probably
> >(but only if you can explain it logically)
>
> It's true whether you can explain it or not.

SYW,OGBTM(ATS) TLS,IYTIWH. LOL.

> >Because even a monkey has a 25% chance of picking the right answer.
>
> Most monkeys would be easier to train.

would you like another banana, Zenny?

or perhaps a nice juicy peach?

> >but using classical logic presents a big problem, no?
>
> No.

SYW,OGBTM(ATS) TLS,IYTIWH. LOL.

> > IF 0 + 1 = 1
> >
> > AND 1 + 1 = 2
> > AND 10 + 1 = 11
> > AND 11 + 2 = 20
> >
> > THEN 1 + 2 = 3 is:
> >
> > a] True
> > b] False
> > c] Unable to Determine
> > d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
>
> You've spent a long time coming up with this one, haven't you?

all of two seconds. several posts ago. http://tinyurl.com/cokev

need i note your contined refusal to answer several days later?
(let alone showing your work for the question before this one?)

it goes without saying that you can't show your work for THIS one,
since you didn't even give an answer. don't eat the banana peal.
it's only there to protect the edible part of the fruit.

SYW,OGBTM(ATS) TLS,IYTIWH. LOL.

> >Don't bother making the false assumption
> >that the given assumptions are false.
> >

> >-- S P O I L E R --
> >

> >The correct answer is: [b] False -- probably
> >(but only if you can explain it logically)
>
> No.

yes, i realize that you cannot explain it logically. point mine.

cha' ching!

> >Because even a monkey has a 25% chance of picking the right answer.

[pregnant pause]

> > IF 0 + 1 = 1
> >
> > AND 1 + 1 = 2
> > AND 10 + 1 = 11
> > AND 1 + 2 = 10
> >
> > THEN 11 + 2 = 20 is:
> >
> > a] True
> > b] False
> > c] Unable to Determine
> > d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
>

> True, whether you can explain it or not.

translation: "yes, we have no bananas."

Gawd. SYW,OGBTM(ATS) TLS,IYTIWH. LOL.

> >Because even a monkey has a 25% chance of picking the right answer.

[apparently, that pregnant pause is expecting twin monkees]

> >golly gee.
> >
> >i wonder if Dr. Zen will ever get around to answering thAT sublimely
> >humorous thought-provoking Unicornian Logic post. see also:
>
> Yes, I answered it.

well, so did the monkey, FFS.

SYW,OGBTM(ATS) TLS,IYTIWH. LOL.

> > Re: Unicornian Mathematics + Unicornian Logic = Logical...
> > 0zju-12 http://tinyurl.com/cokev
> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/36b5851746db866b
> >
> >where you'll find Zen is apparently manifesting
> >as the Bob Woodward of Mathematics and Logic

LIVE on Larry King, no less. i think we have a caller on line three.

> >(in not disclosing his super duper secret source for
> >the "third-party judge" that he's been lying about

um, do you see a cite for that so-called judge? i sure as fuck don't.

> >-- while at the same time having the gall to accuse moi of
> >lying instead) -- as well as avoiding some rather interesting
> >Base Three Mathematical conundrums (Zen's hopelessly illogical
> >contradictions).
>
> You do not need to know anything about bases to work out whether
> your examples are true.

SYW,OGBTM(ATS) TLS,IYTIWH. LOL.

> >here's a bit more on that Zen-running-home-to-mommy thinger:
> >
> > lying thru ones' fat (or skinny) teeth
>
> one's.

thanks, but that's only worth 25 cents (at best).

> > 0zjy-00 http://tinyurl.com/dq2ws
> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/e1325eee8136124f
> >
> >if not math and logic, at least Zen's perceptive and effectively
> >expressive on other topics:
> >
> > "...and our disaster plans run a little deeper than
> > scratching our arses and wondering whether there's
> > something we can bomb to make things better"
> > -- Dr. Zen
> > http://tinyurl.com/8wn43
> >
> >oh well. nobody's perfect, right? thank God. cha' ching!
> >
> >(time to order a nice healthy slice of peach pie)
>
> Sure it isn't squirrel pie?

well, yours tastes more like chicken, actually.

> >i'll bet he's been burning the candle at both ends looking for

> >some kind of new goalpost to move on that Base Three baby, aye?

>
> You do not need to know anything about bases to work out whether
> your arguments above are sound.

then why won't you show you work, chicken-boy?

yikes. IQ-wise, i think even squirrels are smarter than chickens.

> >poor fella. but no amount of BPS research is gonna get
> >his arse out of THAT sling. inexorable, indeed.
> >
> >-$Zero... Cha'Ching!...

$27.75

> > IF 3 + 3 = 5
> > AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
> > AND 3 > 2
>
> No.

Gawd. a chicken running around without its head innit.

being chased by a monkey and a squirrel, no less.

> > THEN 2 + 2 = 5 is:
> >
> > a] True
> > b] False
> > c] Unable to Determine
> > d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
>
> True. Absolutely any conclusion you like is true.

well, since you refuse to show your work, that squirrelish bit of
chicken shit definitely applies to ALL of your monkeying-around
nonsense. sadly, it has nothing to do with any consistent logic.

let alone being inexorable.

> >--- S P O I L E R ---
> >

> >The correct answer is: [a] True -- probably
> >(but only if you can explain it logically)
>
> Absolutely any conclusion you like is true, so this one is true.

if you could only show your work for each question in this post,
you'd see how culturally crippled your squirrely logic is, monkeyboy.
well, only as well as a chicken monkey _could_ see it, anyway.

Goalposts-R-You innit.

> 2 + 2 != 5 is also true.
>
> As is 5 + 5 = 2.

sure... bwahhhhhk bwahhhhhk bwahhhhhk!

> >Because even a monkey has a 25% chance of picking the right answer.
> >

> >---------- Introducing Unicornian Mathematics/Logic: --------------
> >
> >Base Two
> >
> >0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

> > 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
> >1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
> > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
> >

> >Base Three
> >
> >0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0

> > 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2

> >1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1
> > 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1

oops. that should have been:

0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2
1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1
1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0
2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2

even numbers on the first line, odd numbers on the second
(reverse that conficuration on lines three and four respectively)
-- which i did, except i messed up the logical sequence on line
four (erroneously starting line four with a "0" instead of a "2").

> >Base Four
> >
> >0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2

> > 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1
> >1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3

> > 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0

oops. same blunder as the Base Three matrix. it should have been:

0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2
1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1
1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2

> >Base Ten
> >
> >0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6

> > 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5
> >1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7

> > 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6
> >
> >

> > "Odd and Even is the binary nature of infinity."
> > -- $Zero...
>
> No.

yes. micro-infinity as well as macro-infinity.

> >Base Infinity
>
> Nope.

why not?

> >0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
> > 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
> >0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
> > 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0

0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0

LOL.

anyway, poor fella. but no amount of BPS research is gonna get your
monkey's arse out of THIS sling. inexorable, indeed.

-$Zero... Cha'Ching!... $27.75... WillThatBePaper... orPlastic?...

and yo... check out the free-of-charge addition of Base Five below.

--------------------- How flawed is your "logic"? ---------------------

IF 3 + 3 = 5
AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
AND 3 > 2

THEN 2 + 2 = 5 is:

a] True
b] False
c] Unable to Determine
d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y

------------------------------ FREE CLUE ------------------------------

Don't bother making the false assumption
that the given assumptions are false.

---------------------------- S P O I L E R ----------------------------

The correct answer is: [a] True -- probably
(but only if you can explain it logically)

Because even a monkey has a 25% chance of picking the right answer.

-------------- Introducing Unicornian Mathematics/Logic: --------------

Base Two

Base Three

0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1
1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0
1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2
2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1

Base Four

0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2
1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1
1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2

Base Five

0 2 4 1 3 0 2 4 1 3 0 2 4 1 3 0 2 4 1 3 0 2 4 1 3 0 2 4 1 3 0 2 4 1 3 0
1 3 0 2 4 1 3 0 2 4 1 3 0 2 4 1 3 0 2 4 1 3 0 2 4 1 3 0 2 4 1 3 0 2 4
1 3 0 2 4 1 3 0 2 4 1 3 0 2 4 1 3 0 2 4 1 3 0 2 4 1 3 0 2 4 1 3 0 2 4 1
2 4 1 3 0 2 4 1 3 0 2 4 1 3 0 2 4 1 3 0 2 4 1 3 0 2 4 1 3 0 2 4 1 3 0

[...]

Base Ten

"Odd and Even is the binary nature of infinity."
-- $Zero...

Base Infinity

0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1

------------------------------- 0zk3-01 -------------------------------

Dr Zen

unread,

Dec 3, 2005, 1:52:25 AM12/3/05

With no regard for personal safety or the comfort of others, the Great
"Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> blathered:

>Re: Unicornian Mathematics, Logic, and Whatever

>
>Dr Zen wrote:
>>
>> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> blathered:
>
>[...]
>
>> > IF 0 + 1 = 1
>> >
>> > AND 1 + 1 = 2
>> > AND 10 + 1 = 11
>> > AND 11 + 2 = 20
>> >
>> > THEN 1 + 2 = 10 is:
>> >
>> > a] True
>> > b] False
>> > c] Unable to Determine
>> > d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
>>
>> True.
>
>show your work, or get behind the monkey (and the squirrel).
>

I don't need to show my work. It's true as it stands.

>
>> >Don't bother making the false assumption
>> >that the given assumptions are false.
>>
>> They aren't.
>
>SYW,OGBTM(ATS)
>
>try logical substitution, if you think it will help. LOL.

Substitute what you like, so long as you do it with precise
correspondence. Here's a hint for you: that's what it's all about,
right there.

>
>
>> >The correct answer is: [a] True -- probably
>> >(but only if you can explain it logically)
>>
>> It's true whether you can explain it or not.
>
>SYW,OGBTM(ATS) TLS,IYTIWH. LOL.
>
>
>> >Because even a monkey has a 25% chance of picking the right answer.
>>
>> Most monkeys would be easier to train.
>
>would you like another banana, Zenny?
>
>or perhaps a nice juicy peach?

Peaches are theft.

>
>> >but using classical logic presents a big problem, no?
>>
>> No.
>
>SYW,OGBTM(ATS) TLS,IYTIWH. LOL.
>

Just in case you're wondering, I'm skipping over this. You already
write too much gibberish to demand decoding first.

>
>> > IF 0 + 1 = 1
>> >
>> > AND 1 + 1 = 2
>> > AND 10 + 1 = 11
>> > AND 11 + 2 = 20
>> >
>> > THEN 1 + 2 = 3 is:
>> >
>> > a] True
>> > b] False
>> > c] Unable to Determine
>> > d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
>>
>> You've spent a long time coming up with this one, haven't you?
>
>all of two seconds. several posts ago. http://tinyurl.com/cokev

I probably didn't read that post.

>
>need i note your contined refusal to answer several days later?
>(let alone showing your work for the question before this one?)

Answer what?

>
>it goes without saying that you can't show your work for THIS one,
>since you didn't even give an answer. don't eat the banana peal.
>it's only there to protect the edible part of the fruit.

It's not possible to determine.

>
>SYW,OGBTM(ATS) TLS,IYTIWH. LOL.
>
>
>> >Don't bother making the false assumption
>> >that the given assumptions are false.
>> >
>> >-- S P O I L E R --
>> >
>> >The correct answer is: [b] False -- probably
>> >(but only if you can explain it logically)
>>
>> No.
>
>yes, i realize that you cannot explain it logically. point mine.

No, it's not false and it has nothing to do with logic.

>
>cha' ching!
>
>
>> >Because even a monkey has a 25% chance of picking the right answer.
>
>[pregnant pause]
>
>
>> > IF 0 + 1 = 1
>> >
>> > AND 1 + 1 = 2
>> > AND 10 + 1 = 11
>> > AND 1 + 2 = 10
>> >
>> > THEN 11 + 2 = 20 is:
>> >
>> > a] True
>> > b] False
>> > c] Unable to Determine
>> > d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
>>
>> True, whether you can explain it or not.
>
>translation: "yes, we have no bananas."

No. It simply is true.

>
>Gawd. SYW,OGBTM(ATS) TLS,IYTIWH. LOL.
>
>> >Because even a monkey has a 25% chance of picking the right answer.
>
>[apparently, that pregnant pause is expecting twin monkees]
>
>
>> >golly gee.
>> >
>> >i wonder if Dr. Zen will ever get around to answering thAT sublimely
>> >humorous thought-provoking Unicornian Logic post. see also:
>>
>> Yes, I answered it.
>
>well, so did the monkey, FFS.
>
>SYW,OGBTM(ATS) TLS,IYTIWH. LOL.
>
>
>> > Re: Unicornian Mathematics + Unicornian Logic = Logical...
>> > 0zju-12 http://tinyurl.com/cokev
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/36b5851746db866b
>> >
>> >where you'll find Zen is apparently manifesting
>> >as the Bob Woodward of Mathematics and Logic
>
>LIVE on Larry King, no less. i think we have a caller on line three.
>
>
>> >(in not disclosing his super duper secret source for
>> >the "third-party judge" that he's been lying about
>
>um, do you see a cite for that so-called judge? i sure as fuck don't.

I was perfectly clear about judges.

>
>
>> >-- while at the same time having the gall to accuse moi of
>> >lying instead) -- as well as avoiding some rather interesting
>> >Base Three Mathematical conundrums (Zen's hopelessly illogical
>> >contradictions).
>>
>> You do not need to know anything about bases to work out whether
>> your examples are true.
>
>SYW,OGBTM(ATS) TLS,IYTIWH. LOL.
>
>
>> >here's a bit more on that Zen-running-home-to-mommy thinger:
>> >
>> > lying thru ones' fat (or skinny) teeth
>>
>> one's.
>
>thanks, but that's only worth 25 cents (at best).
>
>
>> > 0zjy-00 http://tinyurl.com/dq2ws
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/e1325eee8136124f
>> >
>> >if not math and logic, at least Zen's perceptive and effectively
>> >expressive on other topics:
>> >
>> > "...and our disaster plans run a little deeper than
>> > scratching our arses and wondering whether there's
>> > something we can bomb to make things better"
>> > -- Dr. Zen
>> > http://tinyurl.com/8wn43
>> >
>> >oh well. nobody's perfect, right? thank God. cha' ching!
>> >
>> >(time to order a nice healthy slice of peach pie)
>>
>> Sure it isn't squirrel pie?
>
>well, yours tastes more like chicken, actually.

Yuk. I'm a vegetarian. I think I'll take the peach.

>
>
>> >i'll bet he's been burning the candle at both ends looking for
>> >some kind of new goalpost to move on that Base Three baby, aye?
>>
>> You do not need to know anything about bases to work out whether
>> your arguments above are sound.
>
>then why won't you show you work, chicken-boy?
>
>yikes. IQ-wise, i think even squirrels are smarter than chickens.
>
>
>> >poor fella. but no amount of BPS research is gonna get
>> >his arse out of THAT sling. inexorable, indeed.
>> >
>> >-$Zero... Cha'Ching!...
>
>$27.75
>
>
>> > IF 3 + 3 = 5
>> > AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
>> > AND 3 > 2
>>
>> No.
>
>Gawd. a chicken running around without its head innit.

Poor Zero. The key to your misunderstanding is right there. John Ashby
pointed out to you where you were going wrong and you still didn't get
it. By fuck, did you not get it!

>
>being chased by a monkey and a squirrel, no less.
>
>
>> > THEN 2 + 2 = 5 is:
>> >
>> > a] True
>> > b] False
>> > c] Unable to Determine
>> > d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
>>
>> True. Absolutely any conclusion you like is true.
>
>well, since you refuse to show your work, that squirrelish bit of
>chicken shit definitely applies to ALL of your monkeying-around
>nonsense. sadly, it has nothing to do with any consistent logic.

It is the heart of logic.

>
>let alone being inexorable.

It is entirely inexorable.

>
>
>> >--- S P O I L E R ---
>> >
>> >The correct answer is: [a] True -- probably
>> >(but only if you can explain it logically)
>>
>> Absolutely any conclusion you like is true, so this one is true.
>
>if you could only show your work for each question in this post

You have assumed p and not-p. Consequently, any conclusion you like is
true.

>you'd see how culturally crippled your squirrely logic is, monkeyboy.

>well, only as well as a chicken monkey _could_ see it, anyway.

It has nothing to do with culture. Our original dispute was about
logic. You tried to weasel out by arguing with logic. Poor you. Logic
is inexorable.

>
>Goalposts-R-You innit.
>
>
>> 2 + 2 != 5 is also true.
>>
>> As is 5 + 5 = 2.
>
>sure... bwahhhhhk bwahhhhhk bwahhhhhk!

IF 3 = 2 AND 3 > 2, THEN unicorns run in the Kentucy Derby. That's
logic. Inexorably so.

Nope. It's far too complicated to explain why, given that you cannot
even grasp the fundamentals of logic.

>
>
>> >Base Infinity
>>
>> Nope.
>
>why not?

Because.

>
>
>> >0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
>> > 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
>> >0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
>> > 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
>
>0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
> 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
>1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
> 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
>
>LOL.
>
>
>anyway, poor fella. but no amount of BPS research is gonna get your
>monkey's arse out of THIS sling. inexorable, indeed.
>
>
>-$Zero... Cha'Ching!... $27.75... WillThatBePaper... orPlastic?...
>

I don't mind. So long as it's American dollars.

>
>and yo... check out the free-of-charge addition of Base Five below.
>

>
>--------------------- How flawed is your "logic"? ---------------------
>
> IF 3 + 3 = 5
> AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
> AND 3 > 2
> THEN 2 + 2 = 5 is:
>
> a] True

True.

Dr Zen

Zero

unread,

Dec 3, 2005, 3:45:55 AM12/3/05

Dr Zen wrote:

> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> blathered:

[...]

> >> > IF 0 + 1 = 1
> >> > AND 1 + 1 = 2
> >> > AND 10 + 1 = 11
> >> > AND 11 + 2 = 20
> >> >
> >> > THEN 1 + 2 = 10 is:
> >> >
> >> > a] True
> >> > b] False
> >> > c] Unable to Determine
> >> > d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
> >>
> >> True.
> >
> >show your work, or get behind the monkey (and the squirrel).
>
> I don't need to show my work. It's true as it stands.

if you don't show your work, you can't credibly claim to understand
its trueness.

IOW: Show Your Work, Or Get Behind The Monkey (And The Squirrel)

IOW: SYW,OGBTM(ATS)

EOFS, monkey-boy. cha' ching! $27.75

> >> >Don't bother making the false assumption
> >> >that the given assumptions are false.
> >>
> >> They aren't.
> >
> >SYW,OGBTM(ATS)
> >
> >try logical substitution, if you think it will help. LOL.
>
> Substitute what you like, so long as you do it with precise
> correspondence.

which you can't. hence: cha' ching! $27.75

pay up, chicken-boy.

> Here's a hint for you: that's what it's all about, right there.

Gawd. oh goody. lucky moi. i've been given "a hint" from a
squirrely chicken-shitted monkey.

well, here's a hint for you from a logical creative genius:

SYW,OGBTM(ATS)

and: Try Logical Substitution, If You Think It Will Help.

IOW: TLS,IYTIWH

hint: it won't help. you're fucked. cha' ching!

[...]

> >> >Because even a monkey has a 25% chance
> >> >of picking the right answer.
> >>
> >> Most monkeys would be easier to train.
> >
> >would you like another banana, Zenny?
> >or perhaps a nice juicy peach?
>
> Peaches are theft.

bananas aren't?

i guess that fits in quite nicely with your "anything goes"
banana brand of "logic", aye? anyway, yeah, eat a peach and
you're stealing it from the Martians. Gawd.

whoa. just how DO you manage to function on a daily basis?

> >> >but using classical logic presents a big problem, no?
> >>
> >> No.
> >
> >SYW,OGBTM(ATS) TLS,IYTIWH. LOL.
>
> Just in case you're wondering,

nope.

> I'm skipping over this.

yep.

> You already write too much gibberish to demand decoding first.

must be that "anything goes" banana brand of "logic" of yours.

i can certainly see how you might have missed it.

it was right under your banana brand nose.

Show Your Work, Or Get Behind The Monkey (And The Squirrel).

SYW,OGBTM(ATS)

and...

Try Logical Substitution, If You Think It Will Help.

TLS,IYTIWH

hint: you can't show your work because it invalidates your "logic"

hint-2: logical substitution won't help your case at all.

> >> > IF 0 + 1 = 1
> >> >
> >> > AND 1 + 1 = 2
> >> > AND 10 + 1 = 11
> >> > AND 11 + 2 = 20
> >> >
> >> > THEN 1 + 2 = 3 is:
> >> >
> >> > a] True
> >> > b] False
> >> > c] Unable to Determine
> >> > d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
> >>
> >> You've spent a long time coming up with this one, haven't you?
> >
> >all of two seconds. several posts ago. http://tinyurl.com/cokev
>
> I probably didn't read that post.

probably? um... what are the odds? "probably..."

let's see, you snipped your fevered illogic FOUR times in that thread.

and you're STILL doing the same silly Cognitive-Dissonance/y tap-dance.

let's run those few facts through the usenet credibility generator:

whoa. it's laughing louder than i am.

> >need i note your continued refusal to answer several days later?

> >(let alone showing your work for the question before this one?)
>
> Answer what?

Gawd. THEN 1 + 2 = 3 is:

> >it goes without saying that you can't show your work for THIS one,

> >since you didn't even give an answer. don't eat the banana peel.

> >it's only there to protect the edible part of the fruit.
>
> It's not possible to determine.

wrong. b] False.

Zen: http://tinyurl.com/8eprr

Base 3 works because it is mathematics.

You don't need to know base three.
The logic is sound regardless.

Zen: http://tinyurl.com/cokev

IF 1 + 1 = 2, AND 1 + 2 = 10, THEN 1 + 1 + 1 = 10
Hello? You don't need to know any "principles".

speaking of principles...

can anyone guess how Zenny will now attempt to move the goalposts?

there's 10 pounds of bananas in it for the first monkey who claps
it out correctly.

> >SYW,OGBTM(ATS) TLS,IYTIWH. LOL.
> >
> >> >Don't bother making the false assumption
> >> >that the given assumptions are false.
> >> >
> >> >-- S P O I L E R --
> >> >
> >> >The correct answer is: [b] False -- probably
> >> >(but only if you can explain it logically)
> >>
> >> No.
> >
> >yes, i realize that you cannot explain it logically. point mine.
>
> No, it's not false and it has nothing to do with logic.

cha' ching! $27.75 for moi.

(and give that squirrely monkey a banana!)

because Zenny the chimp has finally admitted that his illogic:

"has nothing to do with logic"

> >cha' ching!
> >
> >> >Because even a monkey has a 25% chance
> >> >of picking the right answer.
> >
> >[pregnant pause]

[...]

it's no wonder you've refused to agree to have an independent
third-party person judge this thinger, aye? like, duh.

-$Zero... Cha'Ching!... $27.75... WillThatBePaper... orPlastic?...

i'd recommend plastic, because that illogic of yours is very runny.

--------------------- How flawed is your "logic"? ---------------------

IF 3 + 3 = 5
AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
AND 3 > 2
THEN 2 + 2 = 5 is:

a] True

b] False
c] Unable to Determine
d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y

------------------------------ FREE CLUE ------------------------------

Don't bother making the false assumption
that the given assumptions are false.

---------------------------- S P O I L E R ----------------------------

The correct answer is: [a] True -- probably
(but only if you can explain it logically)

Because even a monkey has a 25% chance of picking the right answer.

-------------- Introducing Unicornian Mathematics/Logic: --------------

Base Three

Base Ten

------------------------------- 0zk3-02 -------------------------------

Zero

unread,

Dec 3, 2005, 5:40:11 AM12/3/05

Dr Zen wrote:

> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> blathered:
>

translation: SYW,OGBTM(ATS)

> I don't need to show my work. It's true as it stands.

yikes. that's exactly what the monkey said.

translation: TLS,IYTIWH. LOL.

[...]

> >> > IF 0 + 1 = 1
> >> > AND 1 + 1 = 2
> >> > AND 10 + 1 = 11
> >> > AND 11 + 2 = 20
> >> >

> >> > THEN 1 + 2 = 3 is:
> >> >
> >> > a] True
> >> > b] False
> >> > c] Unable to Determine
> >> > d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
> >>
> >> You've spent a long time coming up with this one, haven't you?
> >
> >all of two seconds. several posts ago. http://tinyurl.com/cokev

[...]

> >need i note your contined refusal to answer several days later?
> >(let alone showing your work for the question before this one?)
>
> Answer what?
>
> >it goes without saying that you can't show your work for THIS one,
> >since you didn't even give an answer. don't eat the banana peal.
> >it's only there to protect the edible part of the fruit.
>
> It's not possible to determine.

LOL

> >> >Don't bother making the false assumption
> >> >that the given assumptions are false.
> >> >
> >> >-- S P O I L E R --
> >> >
> >> >The correct answer is: [b] False -- probably
> >> >(but only if you can explain it logically)
> >>
> >> No.
> >
> >yes, i realize that you cannot explain it logically. point mine.
>
> No, it's not false and it has nothing to do with logic.

"...and it has nothing to do with logic."

now _that's_ a keeper!

> >> > IF 0 + 1 = 1
> >> > AND 1 + 1 = 2
> >> > AND 10 + 1 = 11
> >> > AND 1 + 2 = 10
> >> >
> >> > THEN 11 + 2 = 20 is:
> >> >
> >> > a] True
> >> > b] False
> >> > c] Unable to Determine
> >> > d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
> >>
> >> True, whether you can explain it or not.
> >
> >translation: "yes, we have no bananas."
>
> No. It simply is true.

SYW,OGBTM(ATS) TLS,IYTIWH

[...]

> >> >golly gee. i wonder if Dr. Zen will ever get around

> >> >to answering that sublimely humorous thought-provoking
> >> >Unicornian Logic post. see also: http://tinyurl.com/cokev

> >>
> >> Yes, I answered it.
> >
> >well, so did the monkey, FFS.
> >
> >SYW,OGBTM(ATS) TLS,IYTIWH. LOL.
> >
> >> > Re: Unicornian Mathematics + Unicornian Logic = Logical...
> >> > 0zju-12 http://tinyurl.com/cokev
> >> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/36b5851746db866b
> >> >
> >> >where you'll find Zen is apparently manifesting
> >> >as the Bob Woodward of Mathematics and Logic
> >
> >LIVE on Larry King, no less. i think we have a caller on line three.
> >
> >> >(in not disclosing his super duper secret source for
> >> >the "third-party judge" that he's been lying about
> >
> >um, do you see a cite for that so-called judge? i sure as fuck don't.
>
> I was perfectly clear about judges.

yes, you were: "no third-party judges!" then later, you lied about
it.

> >> >-- while at the same time having the gall to accuse moi of
> >> >lying instead) -- as well as avoiding some rather interesting
> >> >Base Three Mathematical conundrums (Zen's hopelessly illogical
> >> >contradictions).
> >>
> >> You do not need to know anything about bases to work out whether
> >> your examples are true.
> >
> >SYW,OGBTM(ATS) TLS,IYTIWH. LOL.
> >
> >> >here's a bit more on that Zen-running-home-to-mommy thinger:
> >> >
> >> > lying thru ones' fat (or skinny) teeth

> >> > 0zjy-00 http://tinyurl.com/dq2ws
> >> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/e1325eee8136124f

[...]

> >> >oh well. nobody's perfect, right? thank God. cha' ching!
> >> >(time to order a nice healthy slice of peach pie)
> >>
> >> Sure it isn't squirrel pie?
> >
> >well, yours tastes more like chicken, actually.
>
> Yuk. I'm a vegetarian. I think I'll take the peach.

"steal the peach", you mean. from the Martians, and the Orions, etc.

> >> >i'll bet he's been burning the candle at both ends looking for
> >> >some kind of new goalpost to move on that Base Three baby, aye?
> >>
> >> You do not need to know anything about bases to work out whether
> >> your arguments above are sound.
> >
> >then why won't you show you work, chicken-boy? yikes. IQ-wise,
> >i think even squirrels are smarter than chickens.
> >
> >> >poor fella. but no amount of BPS research is gonna get
> >> >his arse out of THAT sling. inexorable, indeed.
> >> >
> >> >-$Zero... Cha'Ching!... $27.75
> >
> >> > IF 3 + 3 = 5
> >> > AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
> >> > AND 3 > 2
> >>
> >> No.
> >
> >Gawd. a chicken running around without its head innit.

> >being chased by a monkey and a squirrel, no less.
>

> Poor Zero. The key to your misunderstanding is right there.
> John Ashby pointed out to you where you were going wrong
> and you still didn't get it.

Ashby merely asked some relevant questions in order to test the
procedures for various possible operations (like whether particular
Unicornian operations were associative, commutative, etc. or not).
his questions led to the logical conclusion that multiplication
in Unicornian Math was a bit more complicated than i expected.
Ashby's questions led to the Unicornian Mathematical discovery that:

3 * 5 != 5 * 3

unless, of course, um = 0. but all that proved was that multiplication
in non-zero Unicornian mathematics required a specific ordering when
carrying out the operation. IOW:

5 + 5 + 5 != 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3

big deal. but Ashby didn't lay a glove on the following being either
False or contradictional:

IF 3 + 3 = 5
AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
AND 3 > 2

because addition in Unicornian Mathematics works (inexorably).
(well, so does multiplication, it just requires proper ordering).

> By fuck, did you not get it!

whooooooosh!

[...]

> >> True. Absolutely any conclusion you like is true.
> >
> >well, since you refuse to show your work, that squirrelish bit of
> >chicken shit definitely applies to ALL of your monkeying-around
> >nonsense. sadly, it has nothing to do with any consistent logic.
>
> It is the heart of logic.

only when the premise is False. duh.

> >let alone being inexorable.
>
> It is entirely inexorable.

only when the premise is False. duh.

[...]

> >> Absolutely any conclusion you like is true, so this one is true.
> >
> >if you could only show your work for each question in this post
>
> You have assumed p and not-p. Consequently, any conclusion you like
> is true.

nope. YOU have assumed "p and not-p". for no logical reason.

> >you'd see how culturally crippled your squirrely logic is,
> >monkeyboy. well, only as well as a chicken monkey _could_
> >see it, anyway.
>
> It has nothing to do with culture.

Gawd.

> Our original dispute was about logic.

mine sure was.

> You tried to weasel out by arguing with logic. Poor you.
> Logic is inexorable.

no weaseling on my part. i wasn't arguing with logic, i was
arguing with your flawed classical logic. i won. you weaseled.

> >Goalposts-R-You innit.
> >
> >> 2 + 2 != 5 is also true.
> >>
> >> As is 5 + 5 = 2.
> >
> >sure... bwahhhhhk bwahhhhhk bwahhhhhk!
>
> IF 3 = 2 AND 3 > 2, THEN unicorns run in the Kentucy Derby.
> That's logic. Inexorably so.

but i never claimed that 3 = 2. you did. i merely showed how:

3 + 3 _could_ equal 2 + 2

which is quite a bit different than 3 = 2, innit. due to the
inexorable dynamics of Unicornian Math and how it functions
based on the Odd and Even nature of the elements in an equation.

you just don't have the grace to admit it.

[...]
> >> >Base Ten
> >> >
> >> >0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0

> >> > 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9
> >> >1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1
> >> > 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0
> >> >

> >> > "Odd and Even is the binary nature of infinity."
> >> > -- $Zero...
> >>
> >> No.
> >
> >yes. micro-infinity as well as macro-infinity.
>
> Nope. It's far too complicated to explain why, given that you
> cannot even grasp the fundamentals of logic.

whooooooosh!

> >> >Base Infinity
> >>
> >> Nope.
> >
> >why not?
>
> Because.

oh.

[...]

> >anyway, poor fella. but no amount of BPS research is gonna get
> >your monkey's arse out of THIS sling. inexorable, indeed.
> >
> >
> >-$Zero... Cha'Ching!... $27.75... WillThatBePaper... orPlastic?...
>
> I don't mind. So long as it's American dollars.

ok. just send your US $27.75 to me via http://www.paypal.com

-$Zero... WhyYouStillWantYourRunnyLogic... IsAnyone'sGuess...
ButGuessWhat?... I'veWrappedItUpForYou... InBothPaper_&_Plastic...

0zk3-03

Zero

unread,

Dec 3, 2005, 7:14:42 AM12/3/05

The Obligatory Summary

Dr Zen wrote:

> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> blathered:

[...]

> >> > IF 0 + 1 = 1
> >> >
> >> > AND 1 + 1 = 2
> >> > AND 10 + 1 = 11
> >> > AND 11 + 2 = 20
> >> >
> >> > THEN 1 + 2 = 10 is:
> >> >
> >> > a] True
> >> > b] False
> >> > c] Unable to Determine
> >> > d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
> >>
> >> True.

[...]

> >> It's true whether you can explain it or not.

next up:

[...]

> It's not possible to determine.

[...]

> No, it's not false and it has nothing to do with logic.

LOL

[...]

next up:

> >> > IF 0 + 1 = 1
> >> >
> >> > AND 1 + 1 = 2
> >> > AND 10 + 1 = 11
> >> > AND 1 + 2 = 10
> >> >
> >> > THEN 11 + 2 = 20 is:
> >> >
> >> > a] True
> >> > b] False
> >> > c] Unable to Determine
> >> > d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
> >>
> >> True, whether you can explain it or not.
> >
> >translation: "yes, we have no bananas."
>
> No. It simply is true.

[...]

that about cover it?

> >> >golly gee. i wonder if Dr. Zen will ever get around

> >> >to answering that sublimely humorous thought-provoking

> >> >Unicornian Logic post. see also:
> >>
> >> Yes, I answered it.
> >
> >well, so did the monkey, FFS.

[...]

> >> > Re: Unicornian Mathematics + Unicornian Logic = Logical...
> >> > 0zju-12 http://tinyurl.com/cokev
> >> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/36b5851746db866b
> >> >
> >> >where you'll find Zen is apparently manifesting
> >> >as the Bob Woodward of Mathematics and Logic
> >
> >LIVE on Larry King, no less. i think we have a caller on line three.
> >
> >> >(in not disclosing his super duper secret source for
> >> >the "third-party judge" that he's been lying about
> >
> >um, do you see a cite for that so-called judge? i sure as fuck don't.
>
> I was perfectly clear about judges.

heh.

[...]

> >> >here's a bit more on that Zen-running-home-to-mommy thinger:
> >> >
> >> > lying thru ones' fat (or skinny) teeth

> >> > 0zjy-00 http://tinyurl.com/dq2ws
> >> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/e1325eee8136124f

[...]

> >> >oh well. nobody's perfect, right? thank God. cha' ching!
> >> >
> >> >(time to order a nice healthy slice of peach pie)

[...]

and of course, the old Unicornian Standard:

> >> > IF 3 + 3 = 5
> >> > AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
> >> > AND 3 > 2
> >>
> >> No.
> >
> >Gawd. a chicken running around without its head innit.

> >being chased by a monkey and a squirrel, no less.
> >
> >> > THEN 2 + 2 = 5 is:
> >> >
> >> > a] True
> >> > b] False
> >> > c] Unable to Determine
> >> > d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
> >>
> >> True. Absolutely any conclusion you like is true.

well, thanks for disclosing your, um, methodology.

[...]

so, to review Zen's astonishing answers:

-----------------------------

IF 0 + 1 = 1
AND 1 + 1 = 2
AND 10 + 1 = 11
AND 11 + 2 = 20

THEN 1 + 2 = 10 is:

a] True

-----------------------------

IF 0 + 1 = 1
AND 1 + 1 = 2
AND 10 + 1 = 11
AND 11 + 2 = 20

THEN 1 + 2 = 3 is:

c] Unable to Determine

-----------------------------

IF 0 + 1 = 1
AND 1 + 1 = 2
AND 10 + 1 = 11
AND 1 + 2 = 10

THEN 11 + 2 = 20 is:

a] True

-----------------------------

IF 3 + 3 = 5
AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
AND 3 > 2

THEN 2 + 2 = 5 is:

a] True

-----------------------------

that about cover it?

whoa. it sure DOES cover it. yikes. it's buried alive innit.

-$Zero... Cha'Ching!... $27.75... WillThatBePaper... orPlastic?...

"Odd and Even is the binary nature of infinity."
-- $Zero...

-------------- Introducing Unicornian Mathematics/Logic: --------------

Base Ten

Base Two

Base Three

Base Four

------------------------------- 0zk3-04 -------------------------------

Zero

unread,

Dec 3, 2005, 10:54:28 AM12/3/05

The Obligatory Summary of The Summary

Dr Zen wrote:

[... http://tinyurl.com/7puov ...]

and here's a review of Zen's astonishingly inconsistent answers:

----------------------------- Q1

IF 0 + 1 = 1
AND 1 + 1 = 2
AND 10 + 1 = 11
AND 11 + 2 = 20

THEN 1 + 2 = 10 is:

a] True

----------------------------- Q2

IF 0 + 1 = 1
AND 1 + 1 = 2
AND 10 + 1 = 11
AND 11 + 2 = 20

THEN 1 + 2 = 3 is:

c] Unable to Determine

----------------------------- Q3

IF 0 + 1 = 1
AND 1 + 1 = 2
AND 10 + 1 = 11
AND 1 + 2 = 10

THEN 11 + 2 = 20 is:

a] True

----------------------------- Q4

IF 3 + 3 = 5
AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
AND 3 > 2

THEN 2 + 2 = 5 is:

a] True

-----------------------------

that about cover it? yep.

and whoa, boy does that sure cover it. yikes.

it's buried alive innit.

most interesting would be to see Dr. Zen try to reconcile his
"reasoning" for the contradictory methodology he employed to
yield his answers to Q1 and Q2 respectively. let alone his
trying to incorporate his contradictory methodology for coming
up with his answers to Q3 and Q4 into his alleged overall
"logical" consistency.

ya know, actually show his "work" in each case, unlike the monkey.

poor fella.

giddy up, Unicorn, giddy up.

-$Zero... Cha'Ching!... $27.75... WillThatBePaper... orPlastic?...

"Odd and Even is the binary nature of infinity."
-- $Zero...

-------------- Introducing Unicornian Mathematics/Logic: --------------

Base Ten

Base Three

------------------------------- 0zk3-05 -------------------------------

Dr Zen

unread,

Dec 4, 2005, 9:57:20 PM12/4/05

With no regard for personal safety or the comfort of others, the Great
"Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> blathered:

>Dr Zen wrote:

>
>> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> blathered:
>
>[...]
>
>> >> > IF 0 + 1 = 1
>> >> > AND 1 + 1 = 2
>> >> > AND 10 + 1 = 11
>> >> > AND 11 + 2 = 20
>> >> >
>> >> > THEN 1 + 2 = 10 is:
>> >> >
>> >> > a] True
>> >> > b] False
>> >> > c] Unable to Determine
>> >> > d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
>> >>
>> >> True.
>> >
>> >show your work, or get behind the monkey (and the squirrel).
>>
>> I don't need to show my work. It's true as it stands.
>
>if you don't show your work, you can't credibly claim to understand
>its trueness.
>

There is no work to show is what I meant. It's true on the face of it.
We're talking logic, and it's true by the laws of logic. There's
nothing more to say about it.

Way to *parade* your ignorance!

>
>whoa. just how DO you manage to function on a daily basis?
>
>
>> >> >but using classical logic presents a big problem, no?
>> >>
>> >> No.
>> >
>> >SYW,OGBTM(ATS) TLS,IYTIWH. LOL.
>>
>> Just in case you're wondering,
>
>nope.
>
>
>> I'm skipping over this.
>
>yep.
>
>
>> You already write too much gibberish to demand decoding first.
>
>must be that "anything goes" banana brand of "logic" of yours.
>
>i can certainly see how you might have missed it.
>
>it was right under your banana brand nose.
>
>
> Show Your Work, Or Get Behind The Monkey (And The Squirrel).
>
> SYW,OGBTM(ATS)
>
>and...
>
> Try Logical Substitution, If You Think It Will Help.
>
> TLS,IYTIWH
>
>
>hint: you can't show your work because it invalidates your "logic"

Don't be silly.

>
>hint-2: logical substitution won't help your case at all.

"Logical substitution" would seem to be "substitute anything you like
for anything you like" in your books. Which is curiously not logical.

>
>
>> >> > IF 0 + 1 = 1
>> >> >
>> >> > AND 1 + 1 = 2
>> >> > AND 10 + 1 = 11
>> >> > AND 11 + 2 = 20
>> >> >
>> >> > THEN 1 + 2 = 3 is:
>> >> >
>> >> > a] True
>> >> > b] False
>> >> > c] Unable to Determine
>> >> > d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
>> >>
>> >> You've spent a long time coming up with this one, haven't you?
>> >
>> >all of two seconds. several posts ago. http://tinyurl.com/cokev
>>
>> I probably didn't read that post.
>
>probably? um... what are the odds? "probably..."

I'm saying probably because I didn't click the link and because even
if I did I can't be sure which of your bollocksing-ons I read and
which I didn't.

>
>let's see, you snipped your fevered illogic FOUR times in that thread.
>
>and you're STILL doing the same silly Cognitive-Dissonance/y tap-dance.
>
>let's run those few facts through the usenet credibility generator:
>
>whoa. it's laughing louder than i am.
>
>
>> >need i note your continued refusal to answer several days later?
>> >(let alone showing your work for the question before this one?)
>>
>> Answer what?
>
>Gawd. THEN 1 + 2 = 3 is:

You haven't given any assumptions.

>
>
>> >it goes without saying that you can't show your work for THIS one,
>> >since you didn't even give an answer. don't eat the banana peel.
>> >it's only there to protect the edible part of the fruit.
>>
>> It's not possible to determine.
>
>wrong. b] False.

You snipped the question, you reptile.

>
>
>Zen: http://tinyurl.com/8eprr
>
> Base 3 works because it is mathematics.
>
> You don't need to know base three.
> The logic is sound regardless.
>

The logic in the examples you gave did not require a knowledge of base
3.

>
>Zen: http://tinyurl.com/cokev
>
> IF 1 + 1 = 2, AND 1 + 2 = 10, THEN 1 + 1 + 1 = 10
> Hello? You don't need to know any "principles".
>
>
>speaking of principles...
>
>can anyone guess how Zenny will now attempt to move the goalposts?
>
>there's 10 pounds of bananas in it for the first monkey who claps
>it out correctly.
>
>
>> >SYW,OGBTM(ATS) TLS,IYTIWH. LOL.
>> >
>> >> >Don't bother making the false assumption
>> >> >that the given assumptions are false.
>> >> >
>> >> >-- S P O I L E R --
>> >> >
>> >> >The correct answer is: [b] False -- probably
>> >> >(but only if you can explain it logically)
>> >>
>> >> No.
>> >
>> >yes, i realize that you cannot explain it logically. point mine.
>>
>> No, it's not false and it has nothing to do with logic.
>
>cha' ching! $27.75 for moi.
>
>(and give that squirrely monkey a banana!)
>
>because Zenny the chimp has finally admitted that his illogic:
>
> "has nothing to do with logic"

You dishonestly snipped the argument, so that a reader cannot tell
what I said had nothing to do with logic.

>
>
>> >cha' ching!
>> >

IF 2 = 3, squirrels eat peaches.

Dr Zen

unread,

Dec 4, 2005, 10:02:23 PM12/4/05

With no regard for personal safety or the comfort of others, the Great
"Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> blathered:

>The Obligatory Summary

Yes. Plainly so.

>-----------------------------
>
> IF 0 + 1 = 1
> AND 1 + 1 = 2
> AND 10 + 1 = 11
> AND 11 + 2 = 20
>
> THEN 1 + 2 = 3 is:
>
> c] Unable to Determine
>

Yes. Surely you can see why? It's obvious enough.

>-----------------------------
>
> IF 0 + 1 = 1
> AND 1 + 1 = 2
> AND 10 + 1 = 11
> AND 1 + 2 = 10
>
> THEN 11 + 2 = 20 is:
>
> a] True

Yes. I understand that this is the one you're struggling with. You
can't see how you defined 2 "tens". But you did. If you ever do find a
judge that will satisfy you, ask them how.

>
>-----------------------------
>
> IF 3 + 3 = 5
> AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
> AND 3 > 2
>
> THEN 2 + 2 = 5 is:
>
> a] True
>

Yes. Any conclusion whatsoever would be true.

This has nothing to do with what the symbols "really" mean (the
operators are fixed -- you're simply not doing logic if they aren't).
It's simply that you stated p and not p as assumptions.

>-----------------------------
>
>
>that about cover it?
>
>
>whoa. it sure DOES cover it. yikes. it's buried alive innit.

Man, you better hope that *no one* is wading through this nonsense.
Because if you don't agree with the answers above, you should *never*
say anything ever about logic. You're in Josh Hill territory here,
man.

>
>
>
>-$Zero... Cha'Ching!... $27.75... WillThatBePaper... orPlastic?...
>
>
> "Odd and Even is the binary nature of infinity."
> -- $Zero...

No.

>
>
>-------------- Introducing Unicornian Mathematics/Logic: --------------
>
>Base Ten
>
>0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0
> 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9
>1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1
> 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0
>
>Base Two
>
>0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
> 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
>1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
>
>Base Three
>
>0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1
> 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0
>1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2
> 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1
>
>Base Four
>
>0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2
> 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1
>1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
> 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2
>
>------------------------------- 0zk3-04 -------------------------------

I see you dropped base infinity. Very wise.

Dr Zen

unread,

Dec 4, 2005, 10:19:40 PM12/4/05

With no regard for personal safety or the comfort of others, the Great
"Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> blathered:

>The Obligatory Summary of The Summary

>
>Dr Zen wrote:
>
>[... http://tinyurl.com/7puov ...]
>
>
>and here's a review of Zen's astonishingly inconsistent answers:
>
>----------------------------- Q1
>
> IF 0 + 1 = 1
> AND 1 + 1 = 2
> AND 10 + 1 = 11
> AND 11 + 2 = 20
>
> THEN 1 + 2 = 10 is:
>
> a] True

You think you cannot determine this because you can't see how you've
assumed that 2 "tens" are 1 + 2 + 1 + 2, but you have.

>
>----------------------------- Q2
>
> IF 0 + 1 = 1
> AND 1 + 1 = 2
> AND 10 + 1 = 11
> AND 11 + 2 = 20
>
> THEN 1 + 2 = 3 is:
>
> c] Unable to Determine
>

You think this is false because there is no 3 in base 3. But you
didn't stipulate at any point in your argument that we should use base
3. You gave premises, from which one cannot say what "3" is.

>----------------------------- Q3
>
> IF 0 + 1 = 1
> AND 1 + 1 = 2
> AND 10 + 1 = 11
> AND 1 + 2 = 10
>
> THEN 11 + 2 = 20 is:
>
> a] True

Again, you don't see how you assumed that 1 +2 + 1+ 2 = 20, but you
did.

>
>----------------------------- Q4
>
> IF 3 + 3 = 5
> AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
> AND 3 > 2
>
> THEN 2 + 2 = 5 is:
>
> a] True

Yes. Any consequence would be true. You do not understand that any
consequence will follow from premises that assume p and not p, because
you don't know any logic.

>
>-----------------------------
>
>that about cover it? yep.
>
>and whoa, boy does that sure cover it. yikes.
>
>it's buried alive innit.
>
>most interesting would be to see Dr. Zen try to reconcile his
>"reasoning" for the contradictory methodology he employed to
>yield his answers to Q1 and Q2 respectively.

I do understand your problem. You think number 2 should be false. It
isn't though.

> let alone his
>trying to incorporate his contradictory methodology for coming
>up with his answers to Q3 and Q4 into his alleged overall
>"logical" consistency.

Questions 3 and 4 don't have anything in common.

>
>ya know, actually show his "work" in each case, unlike the monkey.

I've given you some hints. Try a bit harder.

>
>poor fella.
>
>giddy up, Unicorn, giddy up.
>
>
>-$Zero... Cha'Ching!... $27.75... WillThatBePaper... orPlastic?...
>
>
> "Odd and Even is the binary nature of infinity."
> -- $Zero...
>

No.

>
>-------------- Introducing Unicornian Mathematics/Logic: --------------
>
>Base Ten
>
>0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0
> 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9
>1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1
> 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0
>
>Base Three
>
>0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1
> 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0
>1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2
> 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1
>
>------------------------------- 0zk3-05 -------------------------------

What happened to base infinity? Did you realise your mistake?

Zero

unread,

Dec 5, 2005, 12:52:11 AM12/5/05

Dr Zen wrote:
>
> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> blathered:
>
> >The Obligatory Summary of The Summary
> >
> >Dr Zen wrote:
> >
> >[... http://tinyurl.com/7puov ...]
> >
> >and here's a review of Zen's astonishingly inconsistent answers:
> >
> >----------------------------- Q1
> >
> > IF 0 + 1 = 1
> > AND 1 + 1 = 2
> > AND 10 + 1 = 11
> > AND 11 + 2 = 20
> >
> > THEN 1 + 2 = 10 is:
> >
> > a] True
>
> You think you cannot determine this

no. i think you can determine it.

that is, as long as you use culturally crippled logic.

> You think you cannot determine this because you can't
> see how you've assumed that 2 "tens" are 1 + 2 + 1 + 2,
> but you have.

i can see perfectly well how i've "assumed" all that.

it's called mathematics. Base Three mathematics explicitly.

hence why you will not (and can not) show your "logical" work.

EOFS. cha' ching!

pay up, monkeyboy.

"tens". Gawd.

> >----------------------------- Q2
> >
> > IF 0 + 1 = 1
> > AND 1 + 1 = 2
> > AND 10 + 1 = 11
> > AND 11 + 2 = 20
> >
> > THEN 1 + 2 = 3 is:
> >
> > c] Unable to Determine
>
> You think this is false because there is no 3 in base 3.

yes. it's False because of the conclusion you came to in Q1.

"you've assumed that 2 "tens" are 1 + 2 + 1 + 2, but you have."

that "tens" that you so weasely put into quotes means "threes".

that's a mathematical base system you're evasively yapping
on about. a mathematical base where the "tens" position is
represented by one of three possible symbols.

the premises indeed "assumed" a mathematical base system with
only three possible symbols: 0, 1, 2.

so 1 + 2 cannot equal 3 when it equals 10 because 3 isn't
even a valid mathematical symbol in that case (let alone the
fact that 10 != 3 in any mathematical system).

these are assumptions that you inexorably committed to in Q1.

like, duh. and the same "inexorable" logic applies to Q2.

> But you didn't stipulate at any point in your argument that
> we should use base 3.

the premises stipulated it inexorably. and you agreed in Q1.

the premises in Q1 are identical to those in Q2. duh.

>You gave premises, from which one cannot say what "3" is.

i gave premises which clearly say that 3 is not a player.

otherwise, you could not go on about how the "tens" thing
even existed. duh and double duh. by accepting that there
is a "tens" thinger, and agreeing that the conclusion to Q1
is True, you have undeniably agreed to the knowledge that
"3" cannot be a player in Q2. Q1 and Q2 are inexorably tied
in that way.

assuming that you wish to stay consistent with your bullshit
classical logic, that is.

which then proves that 2 + 2 = 3 + 3 because "um" = 0.5

[...]

> >that about cover it? yep.
> >
> >and whoa, boy does that sure cover it. yikes.
> >
> >it's buried alive innit.
> >
> >most interesting would be to see Dr. Zen try to reconcile his
> >"reasoning" for the contradictory methodology he employed to
> >yield his answers to Q1 and Q2 respectively.
>
> I do understand your problem.

LOL. you're way out of your league, illogic-boy.

> You think number 2 should be false. It isn't though.

hey, look. make up your mind. if you claim that Q1 is True
because of some mythical "tens" thinger (which you are totally
unable to show your work for without validating the fact that
2 + 2 = 3 + 3 in "Base" Unicornia) then you must also accept
the fact that 1 + 2 = 3 is False in Q2 because "3" has no
mathematical numerical standing there.

"Unable to Determine", my ass.

3 is not some "variable". in your "tens" universe, 3 is a
known mathematical numerical placeholder which has absolutely
no business in any mathematical universe where 11 + 2 = 20.

so given that:

11 + 2 = 20 AND 0 + 1 = 1 AND 1 + 1 = 2 AND 10 + 1 = 11

THEN 1 + 2 = 3 is clearly False.

EOFS. cha' ching! http://www.paypal.com

> >let alone his trying to incorporate his contradictory
> >methodology for coming up with his answers to Q3 and Q4
> >into his alleged overall "logical" consistency.
>
> Questions 3 and 4 don't have anything in common.

yes they do. they have mathematics and logic in common.

of which you have utterly failed to grasp either.

> >ya know, actually show his "work" in each case,
> >unlike the monkey.
>
> I've given you some hints. Try a bit harder.

i'm sorry, but if the monkey wants a banana, you are going
to have to show your work. otherwise you're just moving
the goalposts into never never land.

IOW: you're just racing a unicorn in the Kentucky Derby.

nice imagery, though. being that you're the monkey jockey.

> >poor fella.
> >
> >giddy up, Unicorn, giddy up.
> >
> >
> >-$Zero... Cha'Ching!... $27.75... WillThatBePaper... orPlastic?...
> >
> >
> > "Odd and Even is the binary nature of infinity."
> > -- $Zero...
>
> No.

yes. inexorably.

> >-------------- Introducing Unicornian Mathematics/Logic: --------------
> >
> >Base Ten
> >
> >0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0
> > 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9
> >1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1
> > 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0
> >
> >Base Three
> >
> >0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1
> > 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0
> >1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2
> > 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1
> >
> >------------------------------- 0zk3-05 -------------------------------
>
> What happened to base infinity?

the same thing that happened to bases Two, Four, and Five.

snipped for space.

>Did you realise your mistake?

mistake? you seriously think that there is no base infinity?

my Gawd, how utterly small-minded of you.

of course, in base infinity, the "tens" and "hundreds" etc.,
placeholders
are mostly just for show. but that's how it is with mathematics innit.

[bowing]

-$Zero... BlowingPeople'sMinds... WithEvenTheSimplestOfConcepts...

"Odd and Even is the binary nature of infinity."
-- $Zero...

-------------- Introducing Unicornian Mathematics/Logic: --------------

Base Ten -- 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70...

1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9

2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0

Base Two -- 0, 1010, 10100, 11110, 10100, 110010, 111100, 1000110...

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Base Three -- 0, 101, 202, 1010, 1111, 1212, 2020, 2121...

1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0

2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1

Base Four -- 0, 22, 110, 132, 220, 302, 330, 1012...

1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1

2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2

Base Five -- 0, 20, 40, 110, 130, 200, 220, 240...

1 3 0 2 4 1 3 0 2 4 1 3 0 2 4 1 3 0 2 4 1 3 0 2 4 1 3 0 2 4 1 3 0 2 4
2 4 1 3 0 2 4 1 3 0 2 4 1 3 0 2 4 1 3 0 2 4 1 3 0 2 4 1 3 0 2 4 1 3 0

------------------------------- 0zk3-06 -------------------------------

Zero

unread,

Dec 5, 2005, 7:30:36 AM12/5/05

Dr Zen wrote:
>
> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> blathered:

> >> >> > IF 0 + 1 = 1

> >> >> > AND 1 + 1 = 2
> >> >> > AND 10 + 1 = 11
> >> >> > AND 11 + 2 = 20
> >> >> >
> >> >> > THEN 1 + 2 = 10 is:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > a] True
> >> >> > b] False
> >> >> > c] Unable to Determine
> >> >> > d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
> >> >>
> >> >> True.
> >> >
> >> >show your work, or get behind the monkey (and the squirrel).
> >>
> >> I don't need to show my work. It's true as it stands.
> >
> >if you don't show your work, you can't credibly claim to
> >understand its trueness.
>
> There is no work to show is what I meant.

then how did you come to any conclusion at all?

> It's true on the face of it.

in logic, nothing is "true on the face of it."

only clueless monkees who cannot show their "logical" work
would be so desperately hungry for bananas to claim so.

> We're talking logic, and it's true by the laws of logic.

then it should be child's play to show your logic. but you can't.

because your conclusion is based only on the existence of your
knowledge of the fundamentals of Base Three mathematics, where
2 + 11 = 20. EOFS.

you can't come to that it's-TRUE-because-of-the-two-"tens"
thinger any other way. cha' ching!

> There's nothing more to say about it.

yikes. that's exactly what the monkey squealed while frantically
rocking the bars on his cage.

> > IOW: Show Your Work, Or Get Behind The Monkey (And The Squirrel)
> >
> > IOW: SYW,OGBTM(ATS)
> >
> >EOFS, monkey-boy. cha' ching! $27.75
> >
> >> >> >Don't bother making the false assumption
> >> >> >that the given assumptions are false.
> >> >>
> >> >> They aren't.
> >> >
> >> >SYW,OGBTM(ATS)
> >> >
> >> >try logical substitution, if you think it will help. LOL.
> >>
> >> Substitute what you like, so long as you do it with precise
> >> correspondence.
> >
> >which you can't. hence: cha' ching! $27.75
> >
> >pay up, chicken-boy.
> >
> >> Here's a hint for you: that's what it's all about, right there.
> >
> >Gawd. oh goody. lucky moi. i've been given "a hint" from a
> >squirrely chicken-shitted monkey.
> >
> >well, here's a hint for you from a logical creative genius:
> >
> > SYW,OGBTM(ATS)
> >
> > and: Try Logical Substitution, If You Think It Will Help.
> >
> > IOW: TLS,IYTIWH
> >
> >hint: it won't help. you're fucked. cha' ching!

otherwise, show your alleged "logic", monkeyboy. but you can't.

[...snip your selective stealing of peaches and
bananas from the Martians, the Orions, etc....]

> >hint: you can't show your work because it invalidates your "logic"
>
> Don't be silly.

yikes. that's exactly what the monkey keeps squealing while
it does wild backflips in its own poop. because the monkey
cannot show his alleged logic. HTH.

> >hint-2: logical substitution won't help your case at all.
>
> "Logical substitution" would seem to be "substitute anything you like
> for anything you like" in your books. Which is curiously not logical.

FOUITN

show us your alleged "valid logical substitution", or any other
logic which does not rely on the fundamental relationships involved
in Base Three mathematics, or stop wasting bandwidth begging for
bananas that don't add up logically without the desperate assistance
of the knowledge and workings of Base Three mathematics.

> >> >> > IF 0 + 1 = 1
> >> >> >
> >> >> > AND 1 + 1 = 2
> >> >> > AND 10 + 1 = 11
> >> >> > AND 11 + 2 = 20
> >> >> >
> >> >> > THEN 1 + 2 = 3 is:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > a] True
> >> >> > b] False
> >> >> > c] Unable to Determine
> >> >> > d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
> >> >>
> >> >> You've spent a long time coming up with this one, haven't you?
> >> >
> >> >all of two seconds. several posts ago. http://tinyurl.com/cokev
> >>
> >> I probably didn't read that post.
> >
> >probably? um... what are the odds? "probably..."
>
> I'm saying probably because I didn't click the link and because even
> if I did I can't be sure which of your bollocksing-ons I read and
> which I didn't.

you didn't have to click on the link. the context followed directly:

> >let's see, you snipped your fevered illogic FOUR times in that thread.
> >and you're STILL doing the same silly Cognitive-Dissonance/y tap-dance.
> >let's run those few facts through the usenet credibility generator:
> >
> >whoa. it's laughing louder than i am.
> >
> >> >need i note your continued refusal to answer several days later?
> >> >(let alone showing your work for the question before this one?)
> >>
> >> Answer what?
> >
> >Gawd. THEN 1 + 2 = 3 is:
>
> You haven't given any assumptions.

Gawd. the assumptions are right above. as if you didn't see them.

"IF 0 + 1 = 1 AND 1 + 1 = 2 AND 11 + 2 = 20" etc.

also inexorably & logically known as Base Three mathematics. EOFS.

> >> >it goes without saying that you can't show your work for THIS
> >> >one, since you didn't even give an answer. don't eat the banana
> >> >peel. it's only there to protect the edible part of the fruit.
> >>
> >> It's not possible to determine.
> >
> >wrong. b] False.
>
> You snipped the question, you reptile.

um... no i didn't. it's still right there, left entirely unsnipped,
much earlier above:

"IF 0 + 1 = 1 AND 1 + 1 = 2 AND 11 + 2 = 20" etc.

you're just trying to throw as many smokescreens as possible. sad.

> >Zen: http://tinyurl.com/8eprr
> >
> > Base 3 works because it is mathematics.
> >
> > You don't need to know base three.
> > The logic is sound regardless.
>
> The logic in the examples you gave did not require a knowledge
> of base 3.

there was no other way you could come up with a TRUE conclusion
based on your stated 1 + 2 + 1 + 2 = two "tens" thinger.

that's Base Three mathematics. there's no other out for you.

sorry.

> >Zen: http://tinyurl.com/cokev
> >
> > IF 1 + 1 = 2, AND 1 + 2 = 10, THEN 1 + 1 + 1 = 10
> > Hello? You don't need to know any "principles".
> >
> >speaking of principles...
> >
> >can anyone guess how Zenny will now attempt to move the goalposts?
> >
> >there's 10 pounds of bananas in it for the first monkey who claps
> >it out correctly.

yikes. even _i_ didn't expect you to claim that you chose TRUE
for some alleged logical mathematical reason that you claim exists
which pretends to be something other than Base Three mathematics.

i didn't realize how utterly desperate you'd actually get.

i had a whole other goalpost for you to attempt to move.

i never imagined that you'd leave the damning goalpost in place
and try to desperately claim that it was NOT what it actually was.

well, not without showing your work, anyway. which is impossible.

sorry.

> >> >> >Don't bother making the false assumption
> >> >> >that the given assumptions are false.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >-- S P O I L E R --
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The correct answer is: [b] False -- probably
> >> >> >(but only if you can explain it logically)
> >> >>
> >> >> No.
> >> >
> >> >yes, i realize that you cannot explain it logically. point mine.
> >>
> >> No, it's not false and it has nothing to do with logic.
> >
> >cha' ching! $27.75 for moi.
> >
> >(and give that squirrely monkey a banana!)
> >
> >because Zenny the chimp has finally admitted that his illogic:
> >
> > "has nothing to do with logic"
>
> You dishonestly snipped the argument, so that a reader cannot
> tell what I said had nothing to do with logic.

Gawd. no. i did not snip any such thing. you were refering to
the logic question directly above and my claiming it was False.
i can't believe that you're really this freaked out. anyone can
easily go back and verify that i did no such thing by simply
comparing these two posts:

0zk3-01 http://tinyurl.com/93dza
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/0f229dcdaf95b832

0zk3-02 http://tinyurl.com/79upe
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/f05583a93b2d8b5e

in which i snipped nothing inbetween your "nothing to do with logic"
assertion regarding my saying that the answer to "THEN 1 + 2 = 3" was
[b] FALSE -- which you can verify for yourself -- both above in this
very post (still left entirely unsnipped) AND in your very own post
after that:

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/cb7d580df8d4df5f

> >> >> >The correct answer is: [b] False -- probably
> >> >> >(but only if you can explain it logically)
> >> >>
> >> >> No.
> >> >
> >> >yes, i realize that you cannot explain it logically.
> >> >
> >> >point mine.
> >>
> >> No, it's not false and it has nothing to do with logic.

so now you're trying to pull a silly-assed Raypert Pupkin "magic wand"
stunt. my sympathies. that's even more intellectually desperate and
dishonest than pulling a Goalpost, FFS.

cha' ching! give over. http://www.paypal.com

> >> >cha' ching!
> >> >
> >> >> >Because even a monkey has a 25% chance
> >> >> >of picking the right answer.
> >> >
> >> >[pregnant pause]
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >it's no wonder you've refused to agree to have an independent
> >third-party person judge this thinger, aye? like, duh.

heh. no more lies about the existence of third-party judges anymore,
aye, Mr Woodward?

> >-$Zero... Cha'Ching!... $27.75... WillThatBePaper... orPlastic?...
> >
> >i'd recommend plastic, because that illogic of yours is very runny.

[...]

Zero

unread,

Dec 5, 2005, 8:57:00 AM12/5/05

Dr Zen wrote:
>
> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> blathered:
>

> >The Obligatory Summary

[...]

> >and of course, the old Unicornian Standard:
> >
> >> >> > IF 3 + 3 = 5
> >> >> > AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
> >> >> > AND 3 > 2
> >> >>
> >> >> No.
> >> >
> >> >Gawd. a chicken running around without its head innit.
> >> >being chased by a monkey and a squirrel, no less.
> >> >
> >> >> > THEN 2 + 2 = 5 is:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > a] True
> >> >> > b] False
> >> >> > c] Unable to Determine
> >> >> > d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
> >> >>
> >> >> True. Absolutely any conclusion you like is true.
> >
> >well, thanks for disclosing your, um, methodology.
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >so, to review Zen's astonishing answers:
> >

> >----------------------------- Q1

> >
> > IF 0 + 1 = 1
> > AND 1 + 1 = 2
> > AND 10 + 1 = 11
> > AND 11 + 2 = 20
> >
> > THEN 1 + 2 = 10 is:
> >
> > a] True
> >
>
> Yes. Plainly so.

yes. plainly so.

all thanks to your culturally crippled knowledge of the
fundamentals and workings of Base Three mathematics.

> >----------------------------- Q2

> >
> > IF 0 + 1 = 1
> > AND 1 + 1 = 2
> > AND 10 + 1 = 11
> > AND 11 + 2 = 20
> >
> > THEN 1 + 2 = 3 is:
> >
> > c] Unable to Determine
> >
>
> Yes.

no. it's [b] False.

because 1 + 2 = 10, as you agreed above in Q1

not to mention that: 10 != 3

and before you waste all your precious time focussing on
the "mysterious" inexorable numerical 3 thinger, try this:

IF 0 + 1 = 1
AND 1 + 1 = 2
AND 10 + 1 = 11
AND 11 + 2 = 20

THEN 1 + 2 = 22 is:

a] True
a] False
c] Unable to Determine

and show your work, or get behind the monkey and the squirrel.

> Surely you can see why?

why you're ridiculously choosing "Unable to Determine"?

yes. i can surely see why.

> It's obvious enough.

indeed.

you're obligated to do so since you chose TRUE for Q1
(claiming elsewhere that you did so because it there
was some sort of inherent logic of "tens" which strangely
enough you claimed was not really the logic of "threes")
and you don't want to admit that you're fucked, logically
speaking.

you could have chosen TRUE instead for Q2, but you got
yourself all screwed up by NOT claiming that Q1 had a
premise which contained at least one False assumption.

cha' ching! http://www.paypal.com thanks.

> >----------------------------- Q3

> >
> > IF 0 + 1 = 1
> > AND 1 + 1 = 2
> > AND 10 + 1 = 11
> > AND 1 + 2 = 10
> >
> > THEN 11 + 2 = 20 is:
> >
> > a] True
>
> Yes. I understand that this is the one you're struggling with.

not at all. not in the least bit, monkeyboy.

> You can't see how you defined 2 "tens". But you did.

yes. using Base Three mathematics. there's no other way.

chin up.

> If you ever do find a judge that will satisfy you,
> ask them how.

translation: "My name is Zenny the monkey and I'm fucked"

because you cannot explain it without using Base Three math.

> >----------------------------- Q4

> >
> > IF 3 + 3 = 5
> > AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
> > AND 3 > 2
> >
> > THEN 2 + 2 = 5 is:
> >
> > a] True
>
> Yes. Any conclusion whatsoever would be true.

no. for instance:

IF 3 + 3 = 5
AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
AND 3 > 2

THEN 2 + 2 = 4 is:

b] False

> This has nothing to do with what the symbols "really" mean

whoa. way off. never never land.

it's an axiom of identity crisis you got going there, Zenny.

you're headed back into that utterly insane and contradictional
world of Mrs. 3 Smith and Mrs. 3 Jones.

> (the operators are fixed -- you're simply not doing logic
> if they aren't).

agreed. all the operators are fixed.

as are all of the numerical symbols. cha' ching!

> It's simply that you stated p and not p as assumptions.

nope. i did not state that. i simply discovered the
existing Unicornian Mathematical relationships which
makes all of the assumptions actually True and valid.

just as you did in Q1 & Q3 (and shirked in Q2)

> >-----------------------------
> >
> >that about cover it?
> >
> >
> >whoa. it sure DOES cover it. yikes. it's buried alive innit.
>
> Man, you better hope that *no one* is wading through this nonsense.

it's not nonsense on my end, Zenny. sorry. chin up.

> Because if you don't agree with the answers above, you should
> *never* say anything ever about logic.

FOUITN

> You're in Josh Hill territory here, man.

shall we search for a third-party independent judge?

or is that still totally off limits for you?

> >-$Zero... Cha'Ching!... $27.75... WillThatBePaper... orPlastic?...
> >
> >
> > "Odd and Even is the binary nature of infinity."
> > -- $Zero...
>
> No.

yes. inexorably. for both micro-infinity and macro-infinity.

or do you actually think that Odd and Even "stops" somewhere?

-$Zero... Cha'Ching!... $27.75... WillThatBePaper... orPlastic?...

"Odd and Even is the binary nature of infinity."
-- $Zero...

0zk3-08

Dr Zen

unread,

Dec 5, 2005, 9:51:53 PM12/5/05

With no regard for personal safety or the comfort of others, the Great
"Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> blathered:

>Dr Zen wrote:

>>
>> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> blathered:
>>
>> >The Obligatory Summary of The Summary
>> >
>> >Dr Zen wrote:
>> >
>> >[... http://tinyurl.com/7puov ...]
>> >
>> >and here's a review of Zen's astonishingly inconsistent answers:
>> >
>> >----------------------------- Q1
>> >
>> > IF 0 + 1 = 1
>> > AND 1 + 1 = 2
>> > AND 10 + 1 = 11
>> > AND 11 + 2 = 20
>> >
>> > THEN 1 + 2 = 10 is:
>> >
>> > a] True
>>
>> You think you cannot determine this
>
>no. i think you can determine it.
>
>that is, as long as you use culturally crippled logic.
>

Logic, IOW.

>
>> You think you cannot determine this because you can't
>> see how you've assumed that 2 "tens" are 1 + 2 + 1 + 2,
>> but you have.
>
>i can see perfectly well how i've "assumed" all that.

Yes, you've made the wrong assumption.

>
>it's called mathematics. Base Three mathematics explicitly.

You have not at any place in your assumptions said that you are using
base three. Could you point out the assumption that says so?

>
>hence why you will not (and can not) show your "logical" work.

I've explained why it's true.

>
>EOFS. cha' ching!
>
>pay up, monkeyboy.
>
>"tens". Gawd.

What else do you propose to call them?

>
>
>> >----------------------------- Q2
>> >
>> > IF 0 + 1 = 1
>> > AND 1 + 1 = 2
>> > AND 10 + 1 = 11
>> > AND 11 + 2 = 20
>> >
>> > THEN 1 + 2 = 3 is:
>> >
>> > c] Unable to Determine
>>
>> You think this is false because there is no 3 in base 3.
>
>yes. it's False because of the conclusion you came to in Q1.

No. I've explained, patiently and often, that I did not assume
anything about base 3 in question 1.

>
> "you've assumed that 2 "tens" are 1 + 2 + 1 + 2, but you have."
>
>that "tens" that you so weasely put into quotes means "threes".

Yes, it does. So what?

>that's a mathematical base system you're evasively yapping
>on about. a mathematical base where the "tens" position is
>represented by one of three possible symbols.

Yes, indeed. But you have not at any point given as an assumption that
you are using base three. So I do not know that you are excluding 3 as
a symbol, do I?

>
>the premises indeed "assumed" a mathematical base system with
>only three possible symbols: 0, 1, 2.

No, they did not. It's not stated.

>
>so 1 + 2 cannot equal 3 when it equals 10 because 3 isn't
>even a valid mathematical symbol in that case (let alone the
>fact that 10 != 3 in any mathematical system).

Boy, are you ignorant in maths! "3" is a perfectly permissible symbol
in base 3 because base 3 is no different from base 10 in the symbols
it uses. Try thinking it over.

>
>these are assumptions that you inexorably committed to in Q1.

Nope. I used only the assumptions given.

>
>like, duh. and the same "inexorable" logic applies to Q2.

Nope. I used only the assumptions given.

>
>
>> But you didn't stipulate at any point in your argument that
>> we should use base 3.
>
>the premises stipulated it inexorably. and you agreed in Q1.

No, I didn't. No premise states that you are using base 3. In any
case, there's no need. Base 3 is what it is.

>
>the premises in Q1 are identical to those in Q2. duh.

Yes, they are. Neither gives as an assumption that you are using base
3.

>
>
>>You gave premises, from which one cannot say what "3" is.
>
>i gave premises which clearly say that 3 is not a player.

Nope.

>
>otherwise, you could not go on about how the "tens" thing
>even existed.

The "tens" thing is just a way to refer to the integer second from
right.

> duh and double duh. by accepting that there
>is a "tens" thinger, and agreeing that the conclusion to Q1
>is True, you have undeniably agreed to the knowledge that
>"3" cannot be a player in Q2. Q1 and Q2 are inexorably tied
>in that way.
>

No, you are simply wrong. Logic inexorably expresses your wrongness.

>assuming that you wish to stay consistent with your bullshit
>classical logic, that is.

Yes, I do.

>
>which then proves that 2 + 2 = 3 + 3 because "um" = 0.5

I have no idea what "um" is.

>
>
>[...]
>
>
>> >that about cover it? yep.
>> >
>> >and whoa, boy does that sure cover it. yikes.
>> >
>> >it's buried alive innit.
>> >
>> >most interesting would be to see Dr. Zen try to reconcile his
>> >"reasoning" for the contradictory methodology he employed to
>> >yield his answers to Q1 and Q2 respectively.
>>
>> I do understand your problem.
>
>LOL. you're way out of your league, illogic-boy.
>
>
>> You think number 2 should be false. It isn't though.
>
>hey, look. make up your mind. if you claim that Q1 is True
>because of some mythical "tens" thinger (which you are totally
>unable to show your work for without validating the fact that
>2 + 2 = 3 + 3 in "Base" Unicornia) then you must also accept
>the fact that 1 + 2 = 3 is False in Q2 because "3" has no
>mathematical numerical standing there.

There is no requirement of a reference to base anything in either
question, nor in the other problem you pose.

>
>"Unable to Determine", my ass.
>
>3 is not some "variable". in your "tens" universe, 3 is a
>known mathematical numerical placeholder which has absolutely
>no business in any mathematical universe where 11 + 2 = 20.

I'm afraid it does. Sorry about that.

>
>so given that:
>
> 11 + 2 = 20 AND 0 + 1 = 1 AND 1 + 1 = 2 AND 10 + 1 = 11
>
> THEN 1 + 2 = 3 is clearly False.

Unable to determine.

You don't realise your mistake?

>
>my Gawd, how utterly small-minded of you.
>
>of course, in base infinity, the "tens" and "hundreds" etc.,
>placeholders
>are mostly just for show. but that's how it is with mathematics innit.

Yes, but even a child can see they do not end in 0 and 1. Take care
not to make a very stupid mistake when you answer.

>
>[bowing]
>
>
>-$Zero... BlowingPeople'sMinds... WithEvenTheSimplestOfConcepts...
>
>
> "Odd and Even is the binary nature of infinity."
> -- $Zero...

Nope.

Is infinity odd or even?

Dr Zen

unread,

Dec 6, 2005, 2:32:57 AM12/6/05

With no regard for personal safety or the comfort of others, the Great
"Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> blathered:

>Dr Zen wrote:

>>
>> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> blathered:
>
>> >> >> > IF 0 + 1 = 1
>> >> >> > AND 1 + 1 = 2
>> >> >> > AND 10 + 1 = 11
>> >> >> > AND 11 + 2 = 20
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > THEN 1 + 2 = 10 is:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > a] True
>> >> >> > b] False
>> >> >> > c] Unable to Determine
>> >> >> > d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
>> >> >>
>> >> >> True.
>> >> >
>> >> >show your work, or get behind the monkey (and the squirrel).
>> >>
>> >> I don't need to show my work. It's true as it stands.
>> >
>> >if you don't show your work, you can't credibly claim to
>> >understand its trueness.
>>
>> There is no work to show is what I meant.
>
>then how did you come to any conclusion at all?
>

I looked at the premises. I looked at the conclusion.

>
>> It's true on the face of it.
>
>in logic, nothing is "true on the face of it."

IF a = 1 AND a = !1, dogs walk on two legs is true on the face of it.

>only clueless monkees who cannot show their "logical" work
>would be so desperately hungry for bananas to claim so.

You're fading out, man. Losing has made you humourless. Perhaps you
should troll Nancy and get the smile back on your face?

>
>
>> We're talking logic, and it's true by the laws of logic.
>
>then it should be child's play to show your logic. but you can't.

Won't != can't.

>
>because your conclusion is based only on the existence of your
>knowledge of the fundamentals of Base Three mathematics, where
>2 + 11 = 20. EOFS.

No, absolutely not. EOFS.

>
>you can't come to that it's-TRUE-because-of-the-two-"tens"
>thinger any other way. cha' ching!

Of course I can.

>
>
>> There's nothing more to say about it.
>
>yikes. that's exactly what the monkey squealed while frantically
>rocking the bars on his cage.

Only one of us is squealing.

>
>
>> > IOW: Show Your Work, Or Get Behind The Monkey (And The Squirrel)
>> >
>> > IOW: SYW,OGBTM(ATS)
>> >
>> >EOFS, monkey-boy. cha' ching! $27.75
>> >
>> >> >> >Don't bother making the false assumption
>> >> >> >that the given assumptions are false.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> They aren't.
>> >> >
>> >> >SYW,OGBTM(ATS)
>> >> >
>> >> >try logical substitution, if you think it will help. LOL.
>> >>
>> >> Substitute what you like, so long as you do it with precise
>> >> correspondence.
>> >
>> >which you can't. hence: cha' ching! $27.75
>> >
>> >pay up, chicken-boy.
>> >
>> >> Here's a hint for you: that's what it's all about, right there.
>> >
>> >Gawd. oh goody. lucky moi. i've been given "a hint" from a
>> >squirrely chicken-shitted monkey.
>> >
>> >well, here's a hint for you from a logical creative genius:
>> >
>> > SYW,OGBTM(ATS)
>> >
>> > and: Try Logical Substitution, If You Think It Will Help.
>> >
>> > IOW: TLS,IYTIWH
>> >
>> >hint: it won't help. you're fucked. cha' ching!
>
>otherwise, show your alleged "logic", monkeyboy. but you can't.
>
>
>[...snip your selective stealing of peaches and
> bananas from the Martians, the Orions, etc....]

Dr Zen

unread,

Dec 6, 2005, 2:38:24 AM12/6/05

With no regard for personal safety or the comfort of others, the Great
"Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> blathered:

>Dr Zen wrote:

But, look at this, using familiar Base 10.

If 1 + 9 = 10
AND X + 9 = 10
AND BANANA + FRED = 10
THEN X = FRED

True or false?

>not to mention that: 10 != 3

You didn't give that as an assumption.

>
>and before you waste all your precious time focussing on
>the "mysterious" inexorable numerical 3 thinger, try this:
>
>
> IF 0 + 1 = 1
> AND 1 + 1 = 2
> AND 10 + 1 = 11
> AND 11 + 2 = 20
>
> THEN 1 + 2 = 22 is:
>
> a] True
> a] False
> c] Unable to Determine

False.

>
>and show your work, or get behind the monkey and the squirrel.

You figure it out for yourself.

>
>
>> Surely you can see why?
>
>why you're ridiculously choosing "Unable to Determine"?
>
>yes. i can surely see why.
>
>
>> It's obvious enough.
>
>indeed.
>
>you're obligated to do so since you chose TRUE for Q1
>(claiming elsewhere that you did so because it there
>was some sort of inherent logic of "tens" which strangely
>enough you claimed was not really the logic of "threes")
>and you don't want to admit that you're fucked, logically
>speaking.

*sigh* There is no "logic of tens". You showed in your assumptions
what makes a figure take the "ten" position. That is all.

Zero

unread,

Dec 6, 2005, 11:19:05 AM12/6/05

Dr Zen wrote:

> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> blathered:

[...]

> >and before you waste all your precious time focussing on
> >the "mysterious" inexorable numerical 3 thinger, try this:

----------------------------- Q5

> > IF 0 + 1 = 1
> > AND 1 + 1 = 2
> > AND 10 + 1 = 11
> > AND 11 + 2 = 20
> >
> > THEN 1 + 2 = 22 is:
> >
> > a] True
> > a] False
> > c] Unable to Determine
>
> False.

only due to employing your knowledge of Base Three Mathematics.

otherwise, it would be: [c] Unable to Determine

> >and show your work, or get behind the monkey and the squirrel.
>
> You figure it out for yourself.

Gawd.

actually, this one would have been slightly more "challenging":

----------------------------- Q6

IF 0 + 1 = 1
AND 1 + 1 = 2
AND 10 + 1 = 11
AND 11 + 2 = 20

THEN 1 + 2 = 12 is:

a] True
a] False
c] Unable to Determine

d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y

-----------------------------

but nevertheless, let's move on, shall we?

regarding Q2's "THEN 1 + 2 = 3 is", you chose "[c] Unable
to Determine", and coyly asked moi if i could see why:

> >> Surely you can see why?
> >
> >why you're ridiculously choosing "Unable to Determine"?
> >yes. i can surely see why.
> >
> >> It's obvious enough.
> >
> >indeed.
> >
> >you're obligated to do so since you chose TRUE for Q1
> >(claiming elsewhere that you did so because it there
> >was some sort of inherent logic of "tens" which strangely
> >enough you claimed was not really the logic of "threes")
> >and you don't want to admit that you're fucked, logically
> >speaking.
>
> *sigh* There is no "logic of tens".

yes there is. one such is called Base Ten Mathematics.

but you were relying on one of the "logic of threes" systems.

Base Three Mathematics, specifically.

> You showed in your assumptions what makes a figure take the
> "ten" position. That is all.

it's not a "tens" position. it's an X^1 numerical placeholder. duh.

that X^1 placeholder thinger is common to all of those types of Bases.

the "tens" position is not. but it's clear why you chose to "tens" it.

anyway, allow me to show you just how utterly flipped out you have
become over your totally inconsistent classical logic "methodologies."

depending on your answers, this will take two or three posts.

first, let's reque your flawed mathematical "logic" language:

> You showed in your assumptions what makes a figure take the
> "ten" position. That is all.

um.... are these figures mysteriously "dancing" or something, Zennyboy?

regardless, armed with your flawed classical logic, you'll now attempt
to determine the answer to Q7.

----------------------------- Q7

IF This + Is = This

AND This + This = That
AND ThisIs + This = ThisThis
AND ThisThis + That = ThatIs

THEN That + This = ThisIs is:

a] True
a] False
c] Unable to Determine

d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y

good luck, as always.

----------------------------- Q8

i'll present Q8 while you angrily shake the bars on your monkey cage
seeking unearned bananas after trying to figure out the answer to Q7
(and then witholding your alleged method for incorrectly "solving"
it -- Booby Wayward would be proud).

unless, of course, you pull your predictable "too bored to play
anymore"
bail out. place your bets.

-$Zero... Cha'Ching!... $27.75... http://www.paypal.com

"Odd and Even is the binary nature of infinity."
-- $Zero...

-------------- Introducing Unicornian Mathematics/Logic: --------------

(which explains how: 2 + 2 = 3 + 3 is logically possible)

Base Ten

1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9

2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0

Base Three

1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0

2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1

------------------------------- 0zk3-11 -------------------------------

Towse

unread,

Dec 6, 2005, 11:44:09 AM12/6/05

Zero wrote:

> Dr Zen wrote:
>
>
>>"Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> blathered:
>
>
> [...]
>
>
>>>and before you waste all your precious time focussing on
>>>the "mysterious" inexorable numerical 3 thinger, try this:
>
>
> ----------------------------- Q5
>
>
>>> IF 0 + 1 = 1
>>> AND 1 + 1 = 2
>>> AND 10 + 1 = 11
>>> AND 11 + 2 = 20
>>>
>>>THEN 1 + 2 = 22 is:
>>>
>>> a] True
>>> a] False
>>> c] Unable to Determine
>>
>>False.
>
> only due to employing your knowledge of Base Three Mathematics.
>
> otherwise, it would be: [c] Unable to Determine

Nothing at all to do with Base 3, Zero.

10 + 1 = 11

11 + 2 = 20

10 + 1 + 2 = 20

If 1 + 2 = 22 >>> 22 = 20 - 10, eh?

Well, when fish fly maybe ... or you redefine your variables and your
known definitions of +, -, and =.

You can't just make things up.

--
Sal

Ye olde swarm of links: thousands of links for writers, researchers and
the terminally curious <http://www.internet-resources.com/writers>

Zero

unread,

Dec 6, 2005, 1:35:34 PM12/6/05

Dr Zen wrote:

> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> blathered:

> >> >[... 0zk3-04 http://tinyurl.com/7puov ...]

> >> >
> >> >and here's a review of Zen's astonishingly inconsistent answers:
> >> >
> >> >----------------------------- Q1
> >> > IF 0 + 1 = 1
> >> > AND 1 + 1 = 2
> >> > AND 10 + 1 = 11
> >> > AND 11 + 2 = 20
> >> >
> >> > THEN 1 + 2 = 10 is:
> >> >
> >> > a] True
> >>
> >> You think you cannot determine this
> >
> >no. i think you can determine it. that is,
> >as long as you use culturally crippled logic.
>
> Logic, IOW.

logic != culturally crippled logic

> >> You think you cannot determine this because you can't
> >> see how you've assumed that 2 "tens" are 1 + 2 + 1 + 2,
> >> but you have.
> >
> >i can see perfectly well how i've "assumed" all that.
>
> Yes, you've made the wrong assumption.

well, kinda. because i made the same assumption you did.

> >it's called mathematics. Base Three mathematics explicitly.
>
> You have not at any place in your assumptions said that you are
> using base three. Could you point out the assumption that says so?

all of it as a whole:

IF 0 + 1 = 1 AND 1 + 1 = 2 AND 10 + 1 = 11 AND 11 + 2 = 20

but particularly: AND 11 + 2 = 20 EOFS.

> >hence why you will not (and can not) show your "logical" work.
>
> I've explained why it's true.

translation: "Yes, we have no bananas."

> I've explained why it's true.

no, you haven't. anyway, yikes. that's exactly what the monkey
keeps squealing while frantically shaking the bars of his cage,
demanding another unearned banana.

> >EOFS. cha' ching! pay up, monkeyboy. "tens". Gawd.
>
> What else do you propose to call them?

X^1 numeric placeholders, or some such. definitely not "tens".

(though you DO get 3 cents for using the quotation marks).

so now you're down to $27.72 US. congrats on the progress.

> >> >----------------------------- Q2
> >> >
> >> > IF 0 + 1 = 1
> >> > AND 1 + 1 = 2
> >> > AND 10 + 1 = 11
> >> > AND 11 + 2 = 20
> >> >
> >> > THEN 1 + 2 = 3 is:
> >> >
> >> > c] Unable to Determine
> >>
> >> You think this is false because there is no 3 in base 3.
> >
> >yes. it's False because of the conclusion you came to in Q1.
>
> No. I've explained, patiently and often, that I did not assume
> anything about base 3 in question 1.

and yet you've assumed (and employed) almost EVERYTHING about
Base Three in Q1. whoa. Raypert Pupkin and his magic wand must
be mighty proud.

> > "you've assumed that 2 "tens" are 1 + 2 + 1 + 2, but you have."
> >
> >that "tens" that you so weasely put into quotes means "threes".
>
> Yes, it does. So what?

so everything. duh.

> >that's a mathematical base system you're evasively yapping
> >on about. a mathematical base where the "tens" position is
> >represented by one of three possible symbols.
>
> Yes, indeed. But you have not at any point given as an
> assumption that you are using base three.

11 + 2 = 20 EOFS. (Unicornian alternatives excluded).

> So I do not know that you are excluding 3 as a symbol, do I?

yes, because it is not applicable in a Base Three context.

just where do you think it would show up? particularly given:

> >the premises indeed "assumed" a mathematical base system with
> >only three possible symbols: 0, 1, 2.
>
> No, they did not. It's not stated.

it's a given. every other numeric placeholder is out of context.

IOW: 11 + 2 = 20 disqualifies all other numeric placeholders.
particularly given the other assumptions provided. starting
very nicely and inexorably with 0 + 1 = 1.

unless... are you allowing for other Unicornian Mathematical
relationships? do tell.

> >so 1 + 2 cannot equal 3 when it equals 10 because 3 isn't
> >even a valid mathematical symbol in that case (let alone the
> >fact that 10 != 3 in any mathematical system).
>
> Boy, are you ignorant in maths!

squeals the monkey who says he still hasn't figure out what "um" is.

> "3" is a perfectly permissible symbol in base 3 because base
> 3 is no different from base 10 in the symbols it uses.
> Try thinking it over.

show me one one permissible use of the symbol "3" in Base Three
math which is NOT accompanied by a This-Symbol-Is-Not-Base-Three
signifier. good luck.

> >these are assumptions that you inexorably committed to in Q1.
>
> Nope. I used only the assumptions given.

all of which tightly lock you into that Base Three cage that
you're rattling so hard (trying an utterly futile escape).

> >like, duh. and the same "inexorable" logic applies to Q2.
>
> Nope. I used only the assumptions given.

which you could not grok usefully unless you understood at
least the minimal principles behind Base Three Math.

i'll now take this apropos opportunity to note that the logic
you are using above regarding "mysteriously" understanding the
inexorable nature of Base Three Mathematics (which allows you
to figure out that "1 + 2 = 10" is TRUE based only on the given
assumptions and how they are all also TRUE), is the EXACT same
reasoning you should've been able to logically employ in order
to figure out how "2 + 2 = 3 + 3" was (and is) TRUE given all of
the other given assumptions and logically-obtainable relationships
in the Unicornian Mathematics i introduced to you.

i expect that right about now you're regreting your advocacy in
this manner. but do tell more. really.

> >> But you didn't stipulate at any point in your argument that
> >> we should use base 3.
> >
> >the premises stipulated it inexorably. and you agreed in Q1.
>
> No, I didn't. No premise states that you are using base 3.

all of them do. working together in logical numeric context.

> In any case, there's no need. Base 3 is what it is.

bingo! cha' ching!

> >the premises in Q1 are identical to those in Q2. duh.
>
> Yes, they are.

bingo! cha' ching!

> Neither gives as an assumption that you are using base 3.

>that "tens" that you so weasely put into quotes means "threes".

Yes, it does.

>that's a mathematical base system you're evasively yapping
>on about. a mathematical base where the "tens" position is
>represented by one of three possible symbols.

Yes, indeed.

yikes. those are YOUR concessions, right in this very post.

> >>You gave premises, from which one cannot say what "3" is.
> >
> >i gave premises which clearly say that 3 is not a player.
>
> Nope.

yep.

> >otherwise, you could not go on about how the "tens" thing
> >even existed.
>
> The "tens" thing is just a way to refer to the integer second
> from right.

it's a crappy and totally illogical way to refer to what it is.
(but pretty "useful" when you want to try to diversionaly claim
that you're employing something other than Base Three Math).

> >duh and double duh. by accepting that there is a "tens"
> >thinger, and agreeing that the conclusion to Q1 is True,
> >you have undeniably agreed to the knowledge that "3" cannot
> >be a player in Q2. Q1 and Q2 are inexorably tied in that way.
>
>No, you are simply wrong. Logic inexorably expresses your wrongness.

Gawd. yo, Dude, the first thing one does when trying to got out
of a hole is to stop digging it deeper.

> >assuming that you wish to stay consistent with your bullshit
> >classical logic, that is.
>
> Yes, I do.

then admit defeat and move on.

> >which then proves that 2 + 2 = 3 + 3 because "um" = 0.5
>
> I have no idea what "um" is.

if true, that goes to your totally illogical mind. yet, you
are perfectly able to magically employ Base Three Math without
knowing that you are doing so. remarkable.

[...]

see also: the upcoming comically entertaining and logically and
mathematically enlightenening 0zk3-13 & 0zk3-14 posts, etc..

-$Zero... Cha'ChingersAll...

"Odd and Even is the binary nature of infinity." -- $Zero...

-------------- Introducing Unicornian Mathematics/Logic: --------------

Base Ten -- 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70...

1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9

2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0

Base Two -- 0, 1010, 10100, 11110, 10100, 110010, 111100, 1000110...

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Base Three -- 0, 101, 202, 1010, 1111, 1212, 2020, 2121...

1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0
2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1

------------------------------- 0zk3-09 -------------------------------

Zero

unread,

Dec 6, 2005, 2:49:27 PM12/6/05

Towse wrote:

> Zero wrote:
> > Dr Zen wrote:
> >>"Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> blathered:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >>>and before you waste all your precious time focussing on
> >>>the "mysterious" inexorable numerical 3 thinger, try this:
> >
> > ----------------------------- Q5
> >>> IF 0 + 1 = 1
> >>> AND 1 + 1 = 2
> >>> AND 10 + 1 = 11
> >>> AND 11 + 2 = 20
> >>>
> >>>THEN 1 + 2 = 22 is:
> >>>
> >>> a] True
> >>> a] False
> >>> c] Unable to Determine
> >>
> >>False.
> >
> > only due to employing your knowledge of Base Three Mathematics.
> >
> > otherwise, it would be: [c] Unable to Determine
>
> Nothing at all to do with Base 3, Zero.

yikes. then how do you get past the Base Three premises?

> 10 + 1 = 11
> 11 + 2 = 20

hello #1

> 10 + 1 + 2 = 20

hello #2

if it isn't Base Three, you've already passed by two False equations.

get it?

and that's only if you're reading the symbols as Base Ten numerics.

if you're reading them as non-numeric symbols, you're stuck with:

[c] Unable To Determine.

i think so, anyway. i shouldn't make quick glance assessments,
because i often make stupid errors when i do so.

> If 1 + 2 = 22 >>> 22 = 20 - 10, eh?

you can't do ANY "math" without some sort of consistent overall
mathematical context.

in this case, the assumptions suggest/confirm Base Three, inexorably.
(unless you see some other possible mathematical conclusion from
those given assumptions -- a Unicornian one perhaps?)

so, unless you see the Base Three thing going on, mathematically,
you come up with: [a] True, but for the "wrong" reasons, long before
you ever try to figure out any math in the conclusion statement.

even so:

> If 1 + 2 = 22 >>> 22 = 20 - 10, eh?

20 - 10? how can you perform any math like that and make
ANY conclusion unless you first believe that the assumptions
allow you to do so? in regular Base Ten, 20 - 10 = 10.
but how are you to conclude that the regular rules apply
if none of the assumptions fall in line with regular Base Ten?
just because you're assuming that 20 - 10 = 10 works in all
Bases? what gave you that assumption? the knowledge of
other regular mathematical Base behaviors. see?

you're making all sorts of cultural assumptions is all i'm saying.

and not all of them are necessarily true.

> If 1 + 2 = 22 >>> 22 = 20 - 10, eh?
> Well, when fish fly maybe ...

is that just a myth? some species of fish _can_ fly, can't they?

for very short distances, at least.

or am i just gullible, flying-fish-wise?

> or you redefine your variables and your known definitions of
> +, -, and =.

i've done none of that with the 2 + 2 = 3 + 3 thinger. i've merely
identified a silly (albeit logical) mathematical relationship which
exists there. and it's been useful doing so.

> You can't just make things up.

i'm not making anything up. cite?

but wait, actually you CAN make things up, if they are possible. *

seriously thought, cite one thing i've made up which isn't possible.

anyway, why not try the "This and That" question for a spin:

* i made this logic puzzle up, for instance.

----------------------------- Q7

IF This + Is = This

AND This + This = That
AND ThisIs + This = ThisThis
AND ThisThis + That = ThatIs

THEN That + This = ThisIs is:

a] True
a] False
c] Unable to Determine

d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y

good luck, as always.

-----------------------------

-$Zero... LogicPuzzles... ToTightenYourLogicWith...
BecauseIt'sFarMoreProductiveAndFarLessDestructive...
ToArgueAboutEachother'sFaultyLogic... ThanItIsTo...
ArgueAboutTheResultingPolitics... WhichAreSoOftenBased...
OnSuchFaultyLogic... AndTheOftenAssociatedFoolishPride...

"Odd and Even is the binary nature of infinity." -- $Zero...

-------------- Introducing Unicornian Mathematics/Logic: --------------

(which explains how: 2 + 2 = 3 + 3 is logically possible)

Base Ten

1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9
2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0

Base Three

1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0
2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1

------------------------------- 0zk3-15 -------------------------------

Towse

unread,

Dec 6, 2005, 3:45:45 PM12/6/05

Zero wrote:

> ----------------------------- Q7
>
> IF This + Is = This
>
> AND This + This = That
> AND ThisIs + This = ThisThis
> AND ThisThis + That = ThatIs
>
> THEN That + This = ThisIs is:
>
> a] True
> a] False
> c] Unable to Determine
> d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
>
>
> good luck, as always.

IF A + B = A
AND A + A = C
AND D + A = E
AND E + C = F

THEN C + A = D is . ... [c] unable to determine

You mis wrote your first IF...

HTH!

Towse

unread,

Dec 6, 2005, 4:06:35 PM12/6/05

Zero wrote:

No.

IF x + y = y
AND y + y = z
AND y0 + y = yy
AND yy + z = z0

THEN y + z = zz is: FALSE

because
y0 + y = yy
yy + z = z0
y0 + y + z = z0
y + z = z0 - y0

y + z = z0 - y0 and unless you are truly messing with reality,
zz>z0 and cannot be equal to z0 let alone equal to a value less than z0.

Unless you don't understand the significance of zero and base calculations?

Dr Zen

unread,

Dec 6, 2005, 7:19:48 PM12/6/05

With no regard for personal safety or the comfort of others, the Great
"Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> blathered:

>Dr Zen wrote:

>
>> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> blathered:
>
>[...]
>
>> >and before you waste all your precious time focussing on
>> >the "mysterious" inexorable numerical 3 thinger, try this:
>
>----------------------------- Q5
>
>> > IF 0 + 1 = 1
>> > AND 1 + 1 = 2
>> > AND 10 + 1 = 11
>> > AND 11 + 2 = 20
>> >
>> > THEN 1 + 2 = 22 is:
>> >
>> > a] True
>> > a] False
>> > c] Unable to Determine
>>
>> False.
>
>only due to employing your knowledge of Base Three Mathematics.
>

No, Zero. Because 11 + 2 = 20 AND 10 + 1 + 1 = 12.

I'm missing a step. See whether you can figure it out!

>otherwise, it would be: [c] Unable to Determine

No, sorry. You just don't get this, do you?

>> >and show your work, or get behind the monkey and the squirrel.
>>
>> You figure it out for yourself.
>
>Gawd.
>
>actually, this one would have been slightly more "challenging":
>
>----------------------------- Q6
>
> IF 0 + 1 = 1
> AND 1 + 1 = 2
> AND 10 + 1 = 11
> AND 11 + 2 = 20
>
> THEN 1 + 2 = 12 is:
>
> a] True
> a] False
> c] Unable to Determine
> d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y

False. And clearly so.

You do not need to know base 3 to know that it is, either.

Base 3 necessarily works because this works but the converse is not
necessary. That's the mistake you're making.

IF 1 + 1 = 10

AND 10 + 1 = 11

AND 11 + 1 = 100
THEN 10000001 + 1 = ?

You do not need to know anything about base 2 to know the answer.

Try this:

IF 1 + 1 = 10

AND 10 + 1 = 11

AND 11 + 1 = 100
AND 1 + 2 = 100

THEN 2 + 2 = 110

True or false?

>-----------------------------
>
>but nevertheless, let's move on, shall we?
>
>regarding Q2's "THEN 1 + 2 = 3 is", you chose "[c] Unable
>to Determine", and coyly asked moi if i could see why:

I've showed you why above. I took pity on you.

>
>
>> >> Surely you can see why?
>> >
>> >why you're ridiculously choosing "Unable to Determine"?
>> >yes. i can surely see why.
>> >
>> >> It's obvious enough.
>> >
>> >indeed.
>> >
>> >you're obligated to do so since you chose TRUE for Q1
>> >(claiming elsewhere that you did so because it there
>> >was some sort of inherent logic of "tens" which strangely
>> >enough you claimed was not really the logic of "threes")
>> >and you don't want to admit that you're fucked, logically
>> >speaking.
>>
>> *sigh* There is no "logic of tens".
>
>yes there is. one such is called Base Ten Mathematics.
>
>but you were relying on one of the "logic of threes" systems.
>
>Base Three Mathematics, specifically.

No. I am relying entirely on the assumptions you provided.

>
>
>> You showed in your assumptions what makes a figure take the
>> "ten" position. That is all.
>
>it's not a "tens" position. it's an X^1 numerical placeholder. duh.

Yes. In the common parlance we call it the "ten" because we use base
ten commonly.

>
>that X^1 placeholder thinger is common to all of those types of Bases.
>
>the "tens" position is not. but it's clear why you chose to "tens" it.

Yes, we commonly use base ten, and like most people, I learned to
count in units, tens and hundreds and call them that. I don't even
know what the proper word is for it. There's nothing in it more
sinister than that.

>
>anyway, allow me to show you just how utterly flipped out you have
>become over your totally inconsistent classical logic "methodologies."
>
>depending on your answers, this will take two or three posts.
>
>first, let's reque your flawed mathematical "logic" language:
>
>
>> You showed in your assumptions what makes a figure take the
>> "ten" position. That is all.
>
>um.... are these figures mysteriously "dancing" or something, Zennyboy?

No, they take different positions in a sequence. That's clear enough.

>
>regardless, armed with your flawed classical logic, you'll now attempt
>to determine the answer to Q7.
>
>----------------------------- Q7
>
>
> IF This + Is = This
>
> AND This + This = That
> AND ThisIs + This = ThisThis
> AND ThisThis + That = ThatIs
>
> THEN That + This = ThisIs is:
>
> a] True
> a] False
> c] Unable to Determine
> d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
>
>
>good luck, as always.

It's fucking nonsense.

>
>----------------------------- Q8
>
>i'll present Q8 while you angrily shake the bars on your monkey cage
>seeking unearned bananas after trying to figure out the answer to Q7
>(and then witholding your alleged method for incorrectly "solving"
>it -- Booby Wayward would be proud).

Where's Q8?

>
>unless, of course, you pull your predictable "too bored to play
>anymore"
>bail out. place your bets.
>
>
>-$Zero... Cha'Ching!... $27.75... http://www.paypal.com
>
>
> "Odd and Even is the binary nature of infinity."
> -- $Zero...

No.

>
>
>-------------- Introducing Unicornian Mathematics/Logic: --------------
>
> (which explains how: 2 + 2 = 3 + 3 is logically possible)
>
>Base Ten
>
>1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9
> 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0
>
>Base Three
>
>1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0
> 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1
>
>------------------------------- 0zk3-11 -------------------------------

Dr Zen

unread,

Dec 6, 2005, 7:29:40 PM12/6/05

With no regard for personal safety or the comfort of others, the Great
"Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> blathered:

>Dr Zen wrote:

>
>> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> blathered:
>
>> >> >[... 0zk3-04 http://tinyurl.com/7puov ...]
>> >> >
>> >> >and here's a review of Zen's astonishingly inconsistent answers:
>> >> >
>> >> >----------------------------- Q1
>> >> > IF 0 + 1 = 1
>> >> > AND 1 + 1 = 2
>> >> > AND 10 + 1 = 11
>> >> > AND 11 + 2 = 20
>> >> >
>> >> > THEN 1 + 2 = 10 is:
>> >> >
>> >> > a] True
>> >>
>> >> You think you cannot determine this
>> >
>> >no. i think you can determine it. that is,
>> >as long as you use culturally crippled logic.
>>
>> Logic, IOW.
>
>logic != culturally crippled logic
>

Logic = logic. It's inexorable.

>
>> >> You think you cannot determine this because you can't
>> >> see how you've assumed that 2 "tens" are 1 + 2 + 1 + 2,
>> >> but you have.
>> >
>> >i can see perfectly well how i've "assumed" all that.
>>
>> Yes, you've made the wrong assumption.
>
>well, kinda. because i made the same assumption you did.

Look, if "ten" really is phasing you, just read it as "second number
from the right", okay?

>
>
>> >it's called mathematics. Base Three mathematics explicitly.
>>
>> You have not at any place in your assumptions said that you are
>> using base three. Could you point out the assumption that says so?
>
>all of it as a whole:
>
> IF 0 + 1 = 1 AND 1 + 1 = 2 AND 10 + 1 = 11 AND 11 + 2 = 20
>
>but particularly: AND 11 + 2 = 20 EOFS.
>

IF 0 + 1 = 1 AND 1 + 1 = 2 AND 10 + 1 = 11 AND 11 + 2 = 20 AND 11 + 3
= 22

THEN 3 - 2 = 2

True or false?

Towse, John Ashby, please wait till Zero's pissed his pants before
supplying the correct answer.

>> >hence why you will not (and can not) show your "logical" work.
>>
>> I've explained why it's true.
>
>translation: "Yes, we have no bananas."
>
>
>> I've explained why it's true.
>
>no, you haven't. anyway, yikes. that's exactly what the monkey
>keeps squealing while frantically shaking the bars of his cage,
>demanding another unearned banana.

Only one of us is getting upset.

>
>
>> >EOFS. cha' ching! pay up, monkeyboy. "tens". Gawd.
>>
>> What else do you propose to call them?
>
>X^1 numeric placeholders, or some such. definitely not "tens".
>
>(though you DO get 3 cents for using the quotation marks).
>
>so now you're down to $27.72 US. congrats on the progress.
>
>
>> >> >----------------------------- Q2
>> >> >
>> >> > IF 0 + 1 = 1
>> >> > AND 1 + 1 = 2
>> >> > AND 10 + 1 = 11
>> >> > AND 11 + 2 = 20
>> >> >
>> >> > THEN 1 + 2 = 3 is:
>> >> >
>> >> > c] Unable to Determine
>> >>
>> >> You think this is false because there is no 3 in base 3.
>> >
>> >yes. it's False because of the conclusion you came to in Q1.
>>
>> No. I've explained, patiently and often, that I did not assume
>> anything about base 3 in question 1.
>
>and yet you've assumed (and employed) almost EVERYTHING about
>Base Three in Q1. whoa. Raypert Pupkin and his magic wand must
>be mighty proud.

I've decided to show you why you are wrong. See whether you can get
the question I pose you above right.

>
>
>> > "you've assumed that 2 "tens" are 1 + 2 + 1 + 2, but you have."
>> >
>> >that "tens" that you so weasely put into quotes means "threes".
>>
>> Yes, it does. So what?
>
>so everything. duh.

No, so what? It only means "threes" in quotes, bucko.

>
>> >that's a mathematical base system you're evasively yapping
>> >on about. a mathematical base where the "tens" position is
>> >represented by one of three possible symbols.
>>
>> Yes, indeed. But you have not at any point given as an
>> assumption that you are using base three.
>
>11 + 2 = 20 EOFS. (Unicornian alternatives excluded).
>

3 - 2 = 2

True or false?

Unicorn or horseshit?

>
>> So I do not know that you are excluding 3 as a symbol, do I?
>
>yes, because it is not applicable in a Base Three context.

There is no context bar the assumptions you have given and the normal
rules of logic: that those items external to the logic (which describe
the propositions) are fixed (so = is a sign of equality etc).

>
>just where do you think it would show up? particularly given:
>
>> >the premises indeed "assumed" a mathematical base system with
>> >only three possible symbols: 0, 1, 2.
>>
>> No, they did not. It's not stated.
>
>it's a given. every other numeric placeholder is out of context.
>

3 - 2 = 2

True or false?

Unicorn or horseshit?

>IOW: 11 + 2 = 20 disqualifies all other numeric placeholders.
>particularly given the other assumptions provided. starting
>very nicely and inexorably with 0 + 1 = 1.

Nope.

>unless... are you allowing for other Unicornian Mathematical
>relationships? do tell.
>
>
>> >so 1 + 2 cannot equal 3 when it equals 10 because 3 isn't
>> >even a valid mathematical symbol in that case (let alone the
>> >fact that 10 != 3 in any mathematical system).
>>
>> Boy, are you ignorant in maths!
>
>squeals the monkey who says he still hasn't figure out what "um" is.
>
>
>> "3" is a perfectly permissible symbol in base 3 because base
>> 3 is no different from base 10 in the symbols it uses.
>> Try thinking it over.
>
>show me one one permissible use of the symbol "3" in Base Three
>math which is NOT accompanied by a This-Symbol-Is-Not-Base-Three
>signifier. good luck.

3 - 2 = 2

True or false?

Unicorn or horseshit?

Dr Zen

unread,

Dec 6, 2005, 7:45:09 PM12/6/05

With no regard for personal safety or the comfort of others, the Great
"Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> blathered:

>Towse wrote:

How many times do you need to be told? Base 3 is exactly the same
mathematics as base 10. It uses the same figures and the same
operations.

>get it?
>
>and that's only if you're reading the symbols as Base Ten numerics.
>
>if you're reading them as non-numeric symbols, you're stuck with:
>
> [c] Unable To Determine.
>
>i think so, anyway. i shouldn't make quick glance assessments,
>because i often make stupid errors when i do so.
>
>
>> If 1 + 2 = 22 >>> 22 = 20 - 10, eh?
>
>you can't do ANY "math" without some sort of consistent overall
>mathematical context.

Yes. She's just shown you that.

>
>in this case, the assumptions suggest/confirm Base Three, inexorably.
>(unless you see some other possible mathematical conclusion from
>those given assumptions -- a Unicornian one perhaps?)

IF 3 = 5 AND 5 + 2 = 8

THEN 3 + 2 = 5

True or false?

Grace

unread,

Dec 6, 2005, 9:54:39 PM12/6/05

Zero wrote:

> Towse wrote:
>
>> If 1 + 2 = 22 >>> 22 = 20 - 10, eh?
>> Well, when fish fly maybe ...
>
> is that just a myth? some species of fish _can_ fly, can't they?
>
> for very short distances, at least.
>
> or am i just gullible, flying-fish-wise?

http://oceanlink.island.net/oinfo/biodiversity/flyingfish/flyingfish.html

Grace

Zero

unread,

Dec 6, 2005, 10:10:47 PM12/6/05

Dr Zen wrote:

> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> blathered:
> > Dr Zen wrote:
> >> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> blathered:
> >
> >> >> >[... 0zk3-04 http://tinyurl.com/7puov ...]
> >> >> >
> >> >> >and here's a review of Zen's astonishingly inconsistent answers:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >----------------------------- Q1
> >> >> > IF 0 + 1 = 1
> >> >> > AND 1 + 1 = 2
> >> >> > AND 10 + 1 = 11
> >> >> > AND 11 + 2 = 20
> >> >> >
> >> >> > THEN 1 + 2 = 10 is:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > a] True
> >> >>
> >> >> You think you cannot determine this
> >> >
> >> >no. i think you can determine it. that is,
> >> >as long as you use culturally crippled logic.
> >>
> >> Logic, IOW.
> >
> >logic != culturally crippled logic
>
> Logic = logic. It's inexorable.

until one realizes that their particular "logic" is flawed.

as you will shortly, once you stop being so afraid to commit
to some answers to some of the logic questions i've asked you.
like the "This and That" thinger -- as well as daring to show
your work. i mean, whoa. it's like pulling teeth.

"Loosen up, Mr. Dylan, you're on a cruise!"
-- Popular TV commercial

i know you'd rather pretend that you're holding out on me for
the joy of it, or to teach moi with tough love, to make me work
for it, but... bzzzt. i can see thru that scam.

need i remind you of FOITN?

and your Martian-peach-eating "property is theft" nonsense, etc.?

"Loosen up, Mr. Dylan, you're on a cruise!"
-- Popular TV commercial

> >> >> You think you cannot determine this because you can't
> >> >> see how you've assumed that 2 "tens" are 1 + 2 + 1 + 2,
> >> >> but you have.
> >> >
> >> >i can see perfectly well how i've "assumed" all that.
> >>
> >> Yes, you've made the wrong assumption.
> >
> >well, kinda. because i made the same assumption you did.
>
> Look, if "ten" really is phasing you, just read it as "second number
> from the right", okay?

"X^1 numerical value" works for moi. albeit a tad long-winded.

maybe just: "X^1 slot"

> >> >it's called mathematics. Base Three mathematics explicitly.
> >>
> >> You have not at any place in your assumptions said that you are
> >> using base three. Could you point out the assumption that says so?
> >
> >all of it as a whole:
> >
> > IF 0 + 1 = 1 AND 1 + 1 = 2 AND 10 + 1 = 11 AND 11 + 2 = 20
> >
> >but particularly: AND 11 + 2 = 20 EOFS.
>
> IF 0 + 1 = 1
> AND 1 + 1 = 2
> AND 10 + 1 = 11
> AND 11 + 2 = 20
> AND 11 + 3 = 22
>
> THEN 3 - 2 = 2
>
> True or false?

False?

because:

AND 10 + 1 = 11
AND 11 + 2 = 20
AND 11 + 3 = 22

is, from what i can tell at a fairly quick glance, a contradiction.
it appears to be a premise using two unique number bases without
properly differentiating them. therefore FALSE.

similar to saying 1 + 2 = 3 AND 1 + 2 = 10

though it's possible that technically it's Unable to Determine.

i'd be stunned if it were TRUE.

if so, it may have to be a number base that isn't a whole number
or something weird like that. but that's just a quick guess.

see how easy that was?

no shame. no dread. guesses. inquiry. freedom. learnin'.

> Towse, John Ashby, please wait till Zero's pissed his pants
> before supplying the correct answer.

Zen, i don't share that ego thinger that you, Ray, Goalpost,
and about a dozen other maniacs here in misc.writing do.

i don't obsessively proof my posts. i admit my mistakes.

i evolve as i'm presented with new knowledge, etc..

see, i'm willing to look stupid. it doesn't bother me. at all.

i fully realize that i am not perfect. sorry 'bout that.

and because i'm willing to look stupid, i learn more.

HTH.

that's partly why i could so easily figure out how 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
could be explained to be TRUE mathematically AND logically.

which is why i can see how 2 + 2 = 3 + 3 so easily and you can't.
(or why you don't have the grace to admit that you see it too).

it's also why i'm willing to agree to a third-party judge for
our wager and you are NOT. it's a confidence thinger.

> >> >hence why you will not (and can not) show your "logical" work.
> >>
> >> I've explained why it's true.
> >
> >translation: "Yes, we have no bananas."
> >
> >> I've explained why it's true.
> >
> >no, you haven't. anyway, yikes. that's exactly what the monkey
> >keeps squealing while frantically shaking the bars of his cage,
> >demanding another unearned banana.
>
> Only one of us is getting upset.

indeed. *

[...]

(see also future post: 0zk3-21)

like whoa, i've got about 10 pending in this thread.

some real funny and interesting stuff is on its way!

-$Zero... * BlowingPeople'sMinds... WithEvenTheSimplestOfConcepts...

"Odd and Even is the binary nature of infinity." -- $Zero...

NOTE to Zenny "the squirrely peach-eating chicken-shitted
cage-shaking, Unicorn-riding, monkey-jockey":

i'm not saying it's one or the other. duh.

-------------- Introducing Unicornian Mathematics/Logic: --------------

Base Ten -- 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70...
1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9
2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0

Base Two -- 0, 1010, 10100, 11110, 10100, 110010, 111100, 1000110...
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Base Three -- 0, 101, 202, 1010, 1111, 1212, 2020, 2121...
1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0
2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1

------------------------------- 0zk3-20 -------------------------------

Dr Zen

unread,

Dec 6, 2005, 10:24:14 PM12/6/05

With no regard for personal safety or the comfort of others, the Great

"Grace" <grace...@gmail.com> blathered:

Is gliding flying? Answers without reference to a dictionary, please.

Zero

unread,

Dec 6, 2005, 11:08:55 PM12/6/05

Zero wrote:

> Zen:

[...]

> > >> >> You think you cannot determine this
> > >> >
> > >> >no. i think you can determine it. that is,
> > >> >as long as you use culturally crippled logic.
> > >>
> > >> Logic, IOW.
> > >
> > >logic != culturally crippled logic
> >
> > Logic = logic. It's inexorable.
>
> until one realizes that their particular "logic" is flawed.
>
> as you will shortly, once you stop being so afraid to commit
> to some answers to some of the logic questions i've asked you.
> like the "This and That" thinger -- as well as daring to show
> your work. i mean, whoa. it's like pulling teeth.

BTW: i think the reason you won't answer the "This and That"
logic question is because you're smart enough to see where i'm
headed and you don't want to be proven inconsistent.

oh well. make it as hard as you like, i guess.

your loss.

Sal dove right in, why not you?

if you're not sure, guess. it's not a sin to show imperfection.

[...]

> > IF 0 + 1 = 1
> > AND 1 + 1 = 2
> > AND 10 + 1 = 11
> > AND 11 + 2 = 20
> > AND 11 + 3 = 22
> >
> > THEN 3 - 2 = 2
> >
> > True or false?
>
> False?

i meant True, because of the false premise.

> because:
>
> AND 10 + 1 = 11
> AND 11 + 2 = 20
> AND 11 + 3 = 22
>
> is, from what i can tell at a fairly quick glance, a
> contradiction. it appears to be a premise using two
> unique number bases without properly differentiating
> them. therefore FALSE.

again, i meant True, because of the False premise.

i keep forgetting to clarify that kind of thing.

> similar to saying 1 + 2 = 3 AND 1 + 2 = 10
>
> though it's possible that technically it's Unable to Determine.
>
> i'd be stunned if it were TRUE.
>
> if so, it may have to be a number base that isn't a whole number
> or something weird like that. but that's just a quick guess.
>
> see how easy that was?
>
> no shame. no dread. guesses. inquiry. freedom. learnin'.
>
>
> > Towse, John Ashby, please wait till Zero's pissed his pants
> > before supplying the correct answer.
>
> Zen, i don't share that ego thinger that you, Ray, Goalpost,
> and about a dozen other maniacs here in misc.writing do.
>
> i don't obsessively proof my posts. i admit my mistakes.

see?

> i evolve as i'm presented with new knowledge, etc..
>
> see, i'm willing to look stupid. it doesn't bother me. at all.

hello.

> i fully realize that i am not perfect. sorry 'bout that.
>
> and because i'm willing to look stupid, i learn more.

well, sometimes it is a bit annoying.

> HTH.
>
> that's partly why i could so easily figure out how 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
> could be explained to be TRUE mathematically AND logically.
>
> which is why i can see how 2 + 2 = 3 + 3 so easily and you can't.
> (or why you don't have the grace to admit that you see it too).
>
> it's also why i'm willing to agree to a third-party judge for
> our wager and you are NOT. it's a confidence thinger.

confidence as in certainty, not sock-puppet shills.

> > >> >hence why you will not (and can not) show your "logical" work.
> > >>
> > >> I've explained why it's true.
> > >
> > >translation: "Yes, we have no bananas."
> > >
> > >> I've explained why it's true.
> > >
> > >no, you haven't. anyway, yikes. that's exactly what the monkey
> > >keeps squealing while frantically shaking the bars of his cage,
> > >demanding another unearned banana.
> >
> > Only one of us is getting upset.
>
> indeed. *
>
> [...]
>
> (see also future post: 0zk3-21)
>
> like whoa, i've got about 10 pending in this thread.
>
> some real funny and interesting stuff is on its way!

i remember thinking it all up as i read your responses.

-$Zero... OneOfTheseDays... I'mGonnaLearnHowToTypeWithoutLooking...

"Odd and Even is the binary nature of infinity." -- $Zero...

NOTE to Zenny "the squirrely martian peach-eating chicken-
shitted cage-shaking Unicorn-riding monkey-jockey":

i'm not saying that infinity is one or the other. duh.

-------------- Introducing Unicornian Mathematics/Logic: --------------

Base Ten -- 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70...
1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9
2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0

Base Three -- 0, 101, 202, 1010, 1111, 1212, 2020, 2121...

1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0
2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1

------------------------------- 0zk3-24 -------------------------------

Pies de Arcilla

unread,

Dec 7, 2005, 12:03:52 AM12/7/05

Zero wrote:
> Unicornian Mathematics, Logic, and Whatever

>
>
> --------------------- How flawed is your "logic"? ---------------------

The answer to ALL THREE questions is True.

Now let's see you do something with balanced ternary.

Grace

unread,

Dec 7, 2005, 12:20:47 AM12/7/05

"Dr Zen" <longho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ldlcp1p581k2s4enk...@4ax.com...

> With no regard for personal safety or the comfort of others, the Great
> "Grace" <grace...@gmail.com> blathered:
>
>>Zero wrote:
>>> Towse wrote:
>>>
>>>> If 1 + 2 = 22 >>> 22 = 20 - 10, eh?
>>>> Well, when fish fly maybe ...
>>>
>>> is that just a myth? some species of fish _can_ fly, can't they?
>>>
>>> for very short distances, at least.
>>>
>>> or am i just gullible, flying-fish-wise?
>>
>>http://oceanlink.island.net/oinfo/biodiversity/flyingfish/flyingfish.html
>
> Is gliding flying? Answers without reference to a dictionary, please.

No one said it was. I was just pointing him in a direction to get his
question answered.

Arleen

Dr Zen

unread,

Dec 7, 2005, 12:30:19 AM12/7/05

With no regard for personal safety or the comfort of others, the Great

"Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> blathered:

>Dr Zen wrote:
>
>> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> blathered:
>> > Dr Zen wrote:
>> >> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> blathered:
>> >
>> >> >> >[... 0zk3-04 http://tinyurl.com/7puov ...]
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >and here's a review of Zen's astonishingly inconsistent answers:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >----------------------------- Q1
>> >> >> > IF 0 + 1 = 1
>> >> >> > AND 1 + 1 = 2
>> >> >> > AND 10 + 1 = 11
>> >> >> > AND 11 + 2 = 20
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > THEN 1 + 2 = 10 is:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > a] True
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You think you cannot determine this
>> >> >
>> >> >no. i think you can determine it. that is,
>> >> >as long as you use culturally crippled logic.
>> >>
>> >> Logic, IOW.
>> >
>> >logic != culturally crippled logic
>>
>> Logic = logic. It's inexorable.
>
>until one realizes that their particular "logic" is flawed.
>

You need to demonstrate a flaw before such realisation can be
effected, chum.

>as you will shortly, once you stop being so afraid to commit
>to some answers to some of the logic questions i've asked you.
>like the "This and That" thinger -- as well as daring to show
>your work. i mean, whoa. it's like pulling teeth.

There is no work. The "This and That" thinger was nonsense.

>
>
> "Loosen up, Mr. Dylan, you're on a cruise!"
> -- Popular TV commercial
>
>
>i know you'd rather pretend that you're holding out on me for
>the joy of it, or to teach moi with tough love, to make me work
>for it, but... bzzzt. i can see thru that scam.
>
>need i remind you of FOITN?
>
>and your Martian-peach-eating "property is theft" nonsense, etc.?

Property is theft.

>
>
> "Loosen up, Mr. Dylan, you're on a cruise!"
> -- Popular TV commercial
>
>
>> >> >> You think you cannot determine this because you can't
>> >> >> see how you've assumed that 2 "tens" are 1 + 2 + 1 + 2,
>> >> >> but you have.
>> >> >
>> >> >i can see perfectly well how i've "assumed" all that.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, you've made the wrong assumption.
>> >
>> >well, kinda. because i made the same assumption you did.
>>
>> Look, if "ten" really is phasing you, just read it as "second number
>> from the right", okay?
>
>"X^1 numerical value" works for moi. albeit a tad long-winded.
>
>maybe just: "X^1 slot"

It doesn't apply though.

X^1 = X.

You mean to say 1^X, no?

>> >> >it's called mathematics. Base Three mathematics explicitly.
>> >>
>> >> You have not at any place in your assumptions said that you are
>> >> using base three. Could you point out the assumption that says so?
>> >
>> >all of it as a whole:
>> >
>> > IF 0 + 1 = 1 AND 1 + 1 = 2 AND 10 + 1 = 11 AND 11 + 2 = 20
>> >
>> >but particularly: AND 11 + 2 = 20 EOFS.
>>
>> IF 0 + 1 = 1
>> AND 1 + 1 = 2
>> AND 10 + 1 = 11
>> AND 11 + 2 = 20
>> AND 11 + 3 = 22
>>
>> THEN 3 - 2 = 2
>>
>> True or false?
>
>False?

Bzzzt. Wrong, of course.

>
>because:
>
> AND 10 + 1 = 11
> AND 11 + 2 = 20
> AND 11 + 3 = 22
>
>is, from what i can tell at a fairly quick glance, a contradiction.
>it appears to be a premise using two unique number bases without
>properly differentiating them. therefore FALSE.

Nope. It's completely true and completely disproves your thesis. Nice
try. You lost.

>similar to saying 1 + 2 = 3 AND 1 + 2 = 10

Yes, that's possible too.
IF 1 + 2 = 10
AND 3 = 10

THEN 1 + 2 = 3

is perfectly logical too.

Give up now. You've lost. Thoroughly so.

>
>though it's possible that technically it's Unable to Determine.

No.

>
>i'd be stunned if it were TRUE.

It's completely true.

>if so, it may have to be a number base that isn't a whole number
>or something weird like that. but that's just a quick guess.

Nope. Forget bases. I told you that you do not need a knowledge of
bases to work out your problem and you definitely don't need them for
mine. In fact, they'll get in your way.

>
>see how easy that was?
>
>no shame. no dread. guesses. inquiry. freedom. learnin'.

But you don't want to learn. You want to stick to your poorly
understood prior knowledge.

>
>
>> Towse, John Ashby, please wait till Zero's pissed his pants
>> before supplying the correct answer.
>
>Zen, i don't share that ego thinger that you, Ray, Goalpost,
>and about a dozen other maniacs here in misc.writing do.

You do. You have spent months trying to prove yourself right about
logic, when you were, and still are, wrong.

>i don't obsessively proof my posts. i admit my mistakes.

I'm yet to see it.

>
>i evolve as i'm presented with new knowledge, etc..
>
>see, i'm willing to look stupid. it doesn't bother me. at all.
>
>i fully realize that i am not perfect. sorry 'bout that.
>
>and because i'm willing to look stupid, i learn more.
>
>HTH.
>
>that's partly why i could so easily figure out how 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
>could be explained to be TRUE mathematically AND logically.

It is not and cannot be true mathematically.

>which is why i can see how 2 + 2 = 3 + 3 so easily and you can't.
>(or why you don't have the grace to admit that you see it too).

You managed to make it true by redefining "=". Yeah, that's
mathematics. Sure thing.

>
>it's also why i'm willing to agree to a third-party judge for
>our wager and you are NOT. it's a confidence thinger.

I was perfectly clear about judges.

>
>

>> >> >hence why you will not (and can not) show your "logical" work.
>> >>
>> >> I've explained why it's true.
>> >
>> >translation: "Yes, we have no bananas."
>> >
>> >> I've explained why it's true.
>> >
>> >no, you haven't. anyway, yikes. that's exactly what the monkey
>> >keeps squealing while frantically shaking the bars of his cage,
>> >demanding another unearned banana.
>>
>> Only one of us is getting upset.
>
>indeed. *
>
>[...]
>
>(see also future post: 0zk3-21)
>
>like whoa, i've got about 10 pending in this thread.
>
>some real funny and interesting stuff is on its way!

Gawd. Could you put the warning up front?

>
>
>-$Zero... * BlowingPeople'sMinds... WithEvenTheSimplestOfConcepts...
>
>
> "Odd and Even is the binary nature of infinity." -- $Zero...
>
>
>NOTE to Zenny "the squirrely peach-eating chicken-shitted
>cage-shaking, Unicorn-riding, monkey-jockey":
>
> i'm not saying it's one or the other. duh.

It's true. Without any shadow of a doubt the answer is "true". Because
logic is inexorable. It doesn't bargain. Redefine the operators and
you've cheated. Logic no longer resides where you reside.

Dr Zen

unread,

Dec 7, 2005, 12:34:04 AM12/7/05

With no regard for personal safety or the comfort of others, the Great
"Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> blathered:

>Zero wrote:

>
>> Zen:
>
>[...]
>
>> > >> >> You think you cannot determine this
>> > >> >
>> > >> >no. i think you can determine it. that is,
>> > >> >as long as you use culturally crippled logic.
>> > >>
>> > >> Logic, IOW.
>> > >
>> > >logic != culturally crippled logic
>> >
>> > Logic = logic. It's inexorable.
>>
>> until one realizes that their particular "logic" is flawed.
>>
>> as you will shortly, once you stop being so afraid to commit
>> to some answers to some of the logic questions i've asked you.
>> like the "This and That" thinger -- as well as daring to show
>> your work. i mean, whoa. it's like pulling teeth.
>
>BTW: i think the reason you won't answer the "This and That"
>logic question is because you're smart enough to see where i'm
>headed and you don't want to be proven inconsistent.
>

No, I think you are adding words together as though they are numbers,
and it gives me a headache trying to figure out what you're up to.

>oh well. make it as hard as you like, i guess.
>
>your loss.
>
>Sal dove right in, why not you?
>
>if you're not sure, guess. it's not a sin to show imperfection.
>

I'm not interested enough.

>
>[...]
>
>
>> > IF 0 + 1 = 1
>> > AND 1 + 1 = 2
>> > AND 10 + 1 = 11
>> > AND 11 + 2 = 20
>> > AND 11 + 3 = 22
>> >
>> > THEN 3 - 2 = 2
>> >
>> > True or false?
>>
>> False?
>
>i meant True, because of the false premise.

Nice try.

>
>
>> because:
>>
>> AND 10 + 1 = 11
>> AND 11 + 2 = 20
>> AND 11 + 3 = 22
>>
>> is, from what i can tell at a fairly quick glance, a
>> contradiction. it appears to be a premise using two
>> unique number bases without properly differentiating
>> them. therefore FALSE.
>
>again, i meant True, because of the False premise.
>
>i keep forgetting to clarify that kind of thing.

But the premise is not false, you idiot. It's given as an assumption,
therefore it's true. That's the point that you cannot, will not
understand.

>
>
>> similar to saying 1 + 2 = 3 AND 1 + 2 = 10
>>
>> though it's possible that technically it's Unable to Determine.
>>
>> i'd be stunned if it were TRUE.
>>
>> if so, it may have to be a number base that isn't a whole number
>> or something weird like that. but that's just a quick guess.
>>
>> see how easy that was?
>>
>> no shame. no dread. guesses. inquiry. freedom. learnin'.
>>
>>
>> > Towse, John Ashby, please wait till Zero's pissed his pants
>> > before supplying the correct answer.
>>
>> Zen, i don't share that ego thinger that you, Ray, Goalpost,
>> and about a dozen other maniacs here in misc.writing do.
>>
>> i don't obsessively proof my posts. i admit my mistakes.
>
>see?
>
>
>> i evolve as i'm presented with new knowledge, etc..
>>
>> see, i'm willing to look stupid. it doesn't bother me. at all.
>
>hello.

That's just as well. You've never to my knowledge looked unstupid.

Zero

unread,

Dec 7, 2005, 3:02:50 AM12/7/05

Dr Zen wrote:

> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> blathered:

[...]

> >> >> >> >[... 0zk3-04 http://tinyurl.com/7puov ...]
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >and here's a review of Zen's astonishingly
> >> >> >> >inconsistent answers:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >----------------------------- Q1
> >> >> >> > IF 0 + 1 = 1
> >> >> >> > AND 1 + 1 = 2
> >> >> >> > AND 10 + 1 = 11
> >> >> >> > AND 11 + 2 = 20
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > THEN 1 + 2 = 10 is:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > a] True
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You think you cannot determine this
> >> >> >
> >> >> >no. i think you can determine it. that is,
> >> >> >as long as you use culturally crippled logic.
> >> >>
> >> >> Logic, IOW.
> >> >
> >> >logic != culturally crippled logic
> >>
> >> Logic = logic. It's inexorable.
> >
> >until one realizes that their particular "logic" is flawed.
>
> You need to demonstrate a flaw before such realisation can
> be effected, chum.

i have. many times in your case. and if you'll answer the
"This and That" thinger, i'll do so yet again. count on it.

> >as you will shortly, once you stop being so afraid to commit
> >to some answers to some of the logic questions i've asked you.
> >like the "This and That" thinger -- as well as daring to show
> >your work. i mean, whoa. it's like pulling teeth.
>
> There is no work. The "This and That" thinger was nonsense.

nope. it was absolutely nonsense-free (albeit humorous).

except, of course, for your nonsensical flawed logic.

but that's the part whot helped make it funny.

> >i know you'd rather pretend that you're holding out on me for
> >the joy of it, or to teach moi with tough love, to make me work
> >for it, but... bzzzt. i can see thru that scam.
> >
> >need i remind you of FOITN?

FOUITN

> >and your Martian-peach-eating "property is theft" nonsense, etc.?
>
> Property is theft.

yeah, right. you eat a peach and you're stealing it from
the Martians. and the Orions. and the rest of the infinite
possible population of the infinite possible universe.

sure. right. real "logical". pristine, in fact.

> > "Loosen up, Mr. Dylan, you're on a cruise!"
> > -- Popular TV commercial

i forget what they were selling, probably fabric softener
or somesuch (it's been awhile, but that commercial was
EVERYWHERE at one point) a cheerful relaxed woman was
loosening up Mr. Dylan's stiff collar while she was saying
that catchphrase, IIRC. on some breezy sun-filled Love Boat
of some sort or another.

> >> >> >> You think you cannot determine this because you can't
> >> >> >> see how you've assumed that 2 "tens" are 1 + 2 + 1 + 2,
> >> >> >> but you have.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >i can see perfectly well how i've "assumed" all that.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes, you've made the wrong assumption.
> >> >
> >> >well, kinda. because i made the same assumption you did.
> >>
> >> Look, if "ten" really is phasing you, just read it as "second number
> >> from the right", okay?
> >
> >"X^1 numerical value" works for moi. albeit a tad long-winded.
> >
> >maybe just: "X^1 slot"
>
> It doesn't apply though.
>
> X^1 = X.
>
> You mean to say 1^X, no?

i mean 10^1 for Base Ten, 3^1 for Base Three, etc.

the "hundreds" slot would be 10^2 and 3^2 respectively, IINM.

the ones slot (no quotemarks) would be 10^0 and 3^0, no?

wanna' make another quarter or two on the possessive of "ones" there?

or is it just a plain old adjective?

> >> >> >it's called mathematics. Base Three mathematics explicitly.
> >> >>
> >> >> You have not at any place in your assumptions said that you are
> >> >> using base three. Could you point out the assumption that says so?
> >> >
> >> >all of it as a whole:
> >> >
> >> > IF 0 + 1 = 1 AND 1 + 1 = 2 AND 10 + 1 = 11 AND 11 + 2 = 20
> >> >
> >> >but particularly: AND 11 + 2 = 20 EOFS.
> >>
> >> IF 0 + 1 = 1
> >> AND 1 + 1 = 2
> >> AND 10 + 1 = 11
> >> AND 11 + 2 = 20
> >> AND 11 + 3 = 22
> >>
> >> THEN 3 - 2 = 2
> >>
> >> True or false?
> >
> >False?
>
> Bzzzt. Wrong, of course.

BTW: it would have been nicer if you would have answered my
corrected and amended version of this post instead:

0zk3-24 http://tinyurl.com/aloeg
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/4474dc36473c3d62

but to each his own, aye?

perhaps i'm still wrong, but i chose TRUE (due to the False premise).

> >because:
> >
> > AND 10 + 1 = 11
> > AND 11 + 2 = 20
> > AND 11 + 3 = 22
> >
> >is, from what i can tell at a fairly quick glance, a contradiction.
> >it appears to be a premise using two unique number bases without
> >properly differentiating them. therefore FALSE.
>
> Nope. It's completely true and completely disproves your thesis.

how so?

> Nice try. You lost.

i don't understand how.

just because i don't see what you're getting at there?

how utterly ridiculous.

now see, this is where _i'd_ explain why. but you? nada. happy?

whatever.

but it CAN get boring reading your Booby Wayward shite all the time.

it's rather sleep-inducing, just so ya know.

> >similar to saying 1 + 2 = 3 AND 1 + 2 = 10
>
> Yes, that's possible too.

nope.

> IF 1 + 2 = 10
> AND 3 = 10
>
> THEN 1 + 2 = 3
>
> is perfectly logical too.

sorry, but 3 cannot = 10. you're breaking the rules.

"three" can, but not "3".

neither can -5, -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, etc. (nor any fraction inbetween).

numerical inexorableness or some such.

it's what you're always bitching about when you say that 3 = 2
is not allowed (though you seem to think that you need to specify
that 3 > 2 for some absurd reason -- Mrs. 3 Smith please meet
Mrs. 3 Jones and whatnot -- absolute sillyseason, in my view).

> Give up now. You've lost. Thoroughly so.

on the contrary. Gawwwd. IOW: reverse polarity, monkey-boy.

i won the Unicornian Math argument months and months ago.

you are just one stubborn puppy.

> >though it's possible that technically it's Unable to Determine.
>
> No.

attempt to remotely explain or bore. your call.

but i always thought relentless tediosity was Raypert's gig.

> >i'd be stunned if it were TRUE.
>
> It's completely true.

calling all Rayperts, calling all Rayperts! magic wand sale!

> >if so, it may have to be a number base that isn't a whole number
> >or something weird like that. but that's just a quick guess.
>
> Nope. Forget bases. I told you that you do not need a knowledge
> of bases to work out your problem and you definitely don't need
> them for mine. In fact, they'll get in your way.

dull. and without illumination. is that redundant?

> >see how easy that was?
> >
> >no shame. no dread. guesses. inquiry. freedom. learnin'.
>
> But you don't want to learn. You want to stick to your poorly
> understood prior knowledge.

put your answer where your tedious bullshit is, chicken-boy.

there's only three actual choices to choose from (the
4th is just a bit of humor) so your odds are pretty good:

----------------------------- Q7

IF This + Is = This

AND This + This = That
AND ThisIs + This = ThisThis
AND ThisThis + That = ThatIs

THEN That + This = ThisIs is:

a] True
a] False
c] Unable to Determine

d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y

-----------------------------

> >> Towse, John Ashby, please wait till Zero's pissed his pants

> >> before supplying the correct answer.
> >
> >Zen, i don't share that ego thinger that you, Ray, Goalpost,
> >and about a dozen other maniacs here in misc.writing do.
>
> You do. You have spent months trying to prove yourself right
> about logic, when you were, and still are, wrong.

it's already been proven. months ago. get up to speed.

> >i don't obsessively proof my posts. i admit my mistakes.
>
> I'm yet to see it.

yikes.

> >i evolve as i'm presented with new knowledge, etc..
> >
> >see, i'm willing to look stupid. it doesn't bother me. at all.
> >
> >i fully realize that i am not perfect. sorry 'bout that.
> >
> >and because i'm willing to look stupid, i learn more.
> >
> >HTH.
> >
> >that's partly why i could so easily figure out how 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
> >could be explained to be TRUE mathematically AND logically.
>
> It is not and cannot be true mathematically.

it IS, and can. it's like, totally inexorable, Dude.

> >which is why i can see how 2 + 2 = 3 + 3 so easily and you can't.
> >(or why you don't have the grace to admit that you see it too).
>
> You managed to make it true by redefining "=".

i didn't alter it at all. i simply noticed the existing relationship.

silly as it is. but no sillier than 1 + 2 = 3.

> Yeah, that's mathematics. Sure thing.

yep. based on the Odd and Even nature of the non-static elements
in a given equation.

> >it's also why i'm willing to agree to a third-party judge for
> >our wager and you are NOT. it's a confidence thinger.
>
> I was perfectly clear about judges.

yep: "No third-party judges!"

logic-wise, it's nothing to be proud of.

especially when you lied about it later. desperate.

lying thru ones' fat (or skinny) teeth
0zjy-00 http://tinyurl.com/dq2ws
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/e1325eee8136124f

[...]

> >> Only one of us is getting upset.

> >
> >indeed. *
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >(see also future post: 0zk3-21)
> >
> >like whoa, i've got about 10 pending in this thread.

it's more like 20 now. i'll never catch up at this rate.

so what's new?

> >some real funny and interesting stuff is on its way!
>
> Gawd. Could you put the warning up front?

and scare away the humorless? no way, man. they, most of all,
need to stop taking themselves so ridiculously seriously.

they need to lighten up a bit and take some silly walk lessons.

or at least watch John Cleese demonstrate a few steps.

> >-$Zero... * BlowingPeople'sMinds... WithEvenTheSimplestOfConcepts...
> >
> > "Odd and Even is the binary nature of infinity." -- $Zero...
> >

> >NOTE to Zenny "the squirrely martian-peach-eating chicken-
> >shitted cage-shaking Unicorn-riding monkey-jockey":

> >
> > i'm not saying it's one or the other. duh.
>
> It's true.

yep:

"Odd and Even is the binary nature of infinity."

> Without any shadow of a doubt the answer is "true".

> Because logic is inexorable. It doesn't bargain.

agreed. it's not culturally crippled.

> Redefine the operators and you've cheated.

agreed. but i didn't "redefine" any operators.

just saw what was already there. simple. elegant.

non-contradictional. so far as i can tell, anyway.

you certainly haven't pointed out any flaw in it
(nor has anyone else, as far as i know).

> Logic no longer resides where you reside.

flawed logic resides where you reside if you can't even
tell the difference between odd and even numbers.

[...] (see also future post: 0zk3-28)

where i'll run thru this post again with the expanded
replies that i couldn't fit in this round.

yeah, right.

like i won't just decide to watch the tube instead.

-$Zero... Anywaysers,Zenny-boy...
IDoSoHopeYou'llFindTheInterest...
ToAnswerTheAboveLogicQuestion...
It'sThat"ThisAndThat"Thinger...
WhichYouClaimIsNonsense... ButIsn't...

"...and that, my liege,
is how we know the Earth
to be banana-shaped."
-- Bedevere
[actor: Terry Jones; from the movie:
"Monty Python and the Holy Grail" (1974)]

-------------- Introducing Unicornian Mathematics/Logic: --------------

"is this the right room for an argument?"
-- Argument Consumer
[actor: Michael Palin; from the
Monty Python "Argument Sketch"]

------------------------------- 0zk3-27 -------------------------------

Dr Zen

unread,

Dec 7, 2005, 3:59:06 AM12/7/05

With no regard for personal safety or the comfort of others, the Great
"Grace" <grace...@gmail.com> blathered:

>
>"Dr Zen" <longho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ldlcp1p581k2s4enk...@4ax.com...
>> With no regard for personal safety or the comfort of others, the Great
>> "Grace" <grace...@gmail.com> blathered:
>>
>>>Zero wrote:
>>>> Towse wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If 1 + 2 = 22 >>> 22 = 20 - 10, eh?
>>>>> Well, when fish fly maybe ...
>>>>
>>>> is that just a myth? some species of fish _can_ fly, can't they?
>>>>
>>>> for very short distances, at least.
>>>>
>>>> or am i just gullible, flying-fish-wise?
>>>
>>>http://oceanlink.island.net/oinfo/biodiversity/flyingfish/flyingfish.html
>>
>> Is gliding flying? Answers without reference to a dictionary, please.
>
>No one said it was. I was just pointing him in a direction to get his
>question answered.
>

I'm asking the question. It's called having a conversation. Fuck off
if snarkiness is all you have to offer.

Dr Zen

unread,

Dec 7, 2005, 4:27:20 AM12/7/05

With no regard for personal safety or the comfort of others, the Great
"Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> blathered:

>Dr Zen wrote:

>
>> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> blathered:
>
>[...]
>
>> >> >> >> >[... 0zk3-04 http://tinyurl.com/7puov ...]
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >and here's a review of Zen's astonishingly
>> >> >> >> >inconsistent answers:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >----------------------------- Q1
>> >> >> >> > IF 0 + 1 = 1
>> >> >> >> > AND 1 + 1 = 2
>> >> >> >> > AND 10 + 1 = 11
>> >> >> >> > AND 11 + 2 = 20
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > THEN 1 + 2 = 10 is:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > a] True
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> You think you cannot determine this
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >no. i think you can determine it. that is,
>> >> >> >as long as you use culturally crippled logic.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Logic, IOW.
>> >> >
>> >> >logic != culturally crippled logic
>> >>
>> >> Logic = logic. It's inexorable.
>> >
>> >until one realizes that their particular "logic" is flawed.
>>
>> You need to demonstrate a flaw before such realisation can
>> be effected, chum.
>
>i have. many times in your case. and if you'll answer the
>"This and That" thinger, i'll do so yet again. count on it.
>

The This and That thinger is bullshit.

>> >as you will shortly, once you stop being so afraid to commit
>> >to some answers to some of the logic questions i've asked you.
>> >like the "This and That" thinger -- as well as daring to show
>> >your work. i mean, whoa. it's like pulling teeth.
>>
>> There is no work. The "This and That" thinger was nonsense.
>
>nope. it was absolutely nonsense-free (albeit humorous).

It made my head make a grinding noise.

>
>except, of course, for your nonsensical flawed logic.
>
>but that's the part whot helped make it funny.
>
>> >i know you'd rather pretend that you're holding out on me for
>> >the joy of it, or to teach moi with tough love, to make me work
>> >for it, but... bzzzt. i can see thru that scam.
>> >
>> >need i remind you of FOITN?
>
>FOUITN
>
>> >and your Martian-peach-eating "property is theft" nonsense, etc.?
>>
>> Property is theft.
>
>yeah, right. you eat a peach and you're stealing it from
>the Martians. and the Orions. and the rest of the infinite
>possible population of the infinite possible universe.

If you like. I'm a humanist and don't worry too much about Martians.

>
>sure. right. real "logical". pristine, in fact.
>
>> > "Loosen up, Mr. Dylan, you're on a cruise!"
>> > -- Popular TV commercial
>
>i forget what they were selling, probably fabric softener
>or somesuch (it's been awhile, but that commercial was
>EVERYWHERE at one point) a cheerful relaxed woman was
>loosening up Mr. Dylan's stiff collar while she was saying
>that catchphrase, IIRC. on some breezy sun-filled Love Boat
>of some sort or another.
>
>> >> >> >> You think you cannot determine this because you can't
>> >> >> >> see how you've assumed that 2 "tens" are 1 + 2 + 1 + 2,
>> >> >> >> but you have.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >i can see perfectly well how i've "assumed" all that.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes, you've made the wrong assumption.
>> >> >
>> >> >well, kinda. because i made the same assumption you did.
>> >>
>> >> Look, if "ten" really is phasing you, just read it as "second number
>> >> from the right", okay?
>> >
>> >"X^1 numerical value" works for moi. albeit a tad long-winded.
>> >
>> >maybe just: "X^1 slot"
>>
>> It doesn't apply though.
>>
>> X^1 = X.
>>
>> You mean to say 1^X, no?
>
>i mean 10^1 for Base Ten, 3^1 for Base Three, etc.

Oh, I see. Carry on then.

>
>the "hundreds" slot would be 10^2 and 3^2 respectively, IINM.

Yes, now I see where you were going.

>
>the ones slot (no quotemarks) would be 10^0 and 3^0, no?

No. 10^1 etc.

>
>wanna' make another quarter or two on the possessive of "ones" there?

Ones'.

>
>or is it just a plain old adjective?

Hmmm. You could have it either way. It's either the slot that belongs
to the ones or the slot that is the ones one.

>
>> >> >> >it's called mathematics. Base Three mathematics explicitly.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You have not at any place in your assumptions said that you are
>> >> >> using base three. Could you point out the assumption that says so?
>> >> >
>> >> >all of it as a whole:
>> >> >
>> >> > IF 0 + 1 = 1 AND 1 + 1 = 2 AND 10 + 1 = 11 AND 11 + 2 = 20
>> >> >
>> >> >but particularly: AND 11 + 2 = 20 EOFS.
>> >>
>> >> IF 0 + 1 = 1
>> >> AND 1 + 1 = 2
>> >> AND 10 + 1 = 11
>> >> AND 11 + 2 = 20
>> >> AND 11 + 3 = 22
>> >>
>> >> THEN 3 - 2 = 2
>> >>
>> >> True or false?
>> >
>> >False?
>>
>> Bzzzt. Wrong, of course.
>
>BTW: it would have been nicer if you would have answered my
>corrected and amended version of this post instead:

Too boring.

>
> 0zk3-24 http://tinyurl.com/aloeg
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/4474dc36473c3d62
>
>but to each his own, aye?

You had the wrong reason for thinking it true anyway.

>
>perhaps i'm still wrong, but i chose TRUE (due to the False premise).

No. The false premise thing is wrong. The premise is not false.

get more if into your life, monkey boy. Lots more.

>> >because:
>> >
>> > AND 10 + 1 = 11
>> > AND 11 + 2 = 20
>> > AND 11 + 3 = 22
>> >
>> >is, from what i can tell at a fairly quick glance, a contradiction.
>> >it appears to be a premise using two unique number bases without
>> >properly differentiating them. therefore FALSE.
>>
>> Nope. It's completely true and completely disproves your thesis.
>
>how so?

Your thesis is that you could only answer your questions 1 and 2 by
reference to base 3. I disprove it by showing that you answer them by
reference to the logic, regardless what the symbols are meant to stand
for. Towse showed you the same, but you're still too dumb to get it.

>
>> Nice try. You lost.
>
>i don't understand how.

I know you don't. You've been jumping up and down like a stung monkey
for months because you don't.

IF. Take a note, monkey boy. IF.

See that word? It makes the untrue true.

IF my wife had testes and a penis, she would be my husband.

TRUE.

IF my dog could talk, I would put him in the circus and make a mint.

TRUE.

IF I was a rich man, I would buy a big spa bath.

TRUE.

IF you knew anything about logic, you would not be trying to disprove
the undisprovable, inexorable thinger.

TRUE.

None, not one, of the things I assume is true in this world. My wife
has no testes and no cock; my dog cannot talk, he doesn't even exist,
poor devil; I am not a rich man; and you know absolutely fuck all
about logic.

BUT IF they were all true, THEN the conclusions would be true too.

IF. You need a whole lot more in your life, bucko.

>just because i don't see what you're getting at there?

No, because you do not feel the magic of IF.

IF makes a world where unicorns run in the Derby, Z. IF makes a world
where anything, ANYTHING can be true.

>
>how utterly ridiculous.

And the best thing? IF is free.

And untaxable.

>
>now see, this is where _i'd_ explain why. but you? nada. happy?

I've explained.

IF my dog could sing, I'd put him on the stage.

>
>whatever.
>
>but it CAN get boring reading your Booby Wayward shite all the time.
>
>it's rather sleep-inducing, just so ya know.
>
>> >similar to saying 1 + 2 = 3 AND 1 + 2 = 10
>>
>> Yes, that's possible too.
>
>nope.

Yeppers. IF.

>
>> IF 1 + 2 = 10
>> AND 3 = 10
>>
>> THEN 1 + 2 = 3
>>
>> is perfectly logical too.
>
>sorry, but 3 cannot = 10. you're breaking the rules.

What rules? I made the rules in step one.

>"three" can, but not "3".

Sorry, yes it can. It can be whatever I choose.

>neither can -5, -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
>11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, etc. (nor any fraction inbetween).
>
>numerical inexorableness or some such.

Nope.

>
>it's what you're always bitching about when you say that 3 = 2
>is not allowed

It's allowed. But if you say:

IF 3 = 2
AND 3 >2

THEN any conclusion is true.

>(though you seem to think that you need to specify
>that 3 > 2 for some absurd reason

No, it doesn't have to be 3 >2. Just not both. Unless you want
unicorns to run in the Derby.

>-- Mrs. 3 Smith please meet
>Mrs. 3 Jones and whatnot -- absolute sillyseason, in my view).
>
>> Give up now. You've lost. Thoroughly so.
>
>on the contrary. Gawwwd. IOW: reverse polarity, monkey-boy.

Yes. Reverse polarity. Monkey.

>
>i won the Unicornian Math argument months and months ago.
>
>you are just one stubborn puppy.
>
>> >though it's possible that technically it's Unable to Determine.
>>
>> No.
>
>attempt to remotely explain or bore. your call.

I've explained. IF you were smart, you would quit while you're only a
mile behind.

Another thing untrue in this world but I can assume it!

>but i always thought relentless tediosity was Raypert's gig.
>
>> >i'd be stunned if it were TRUE.
>>
>> It's completely true.
>
>calling all Rayperts, calling all Rayperts! magic wand sale!

Even Ray knows it's true.

>
>> >if so, it may have to be a number base that isn't a whole number
>> >or something weird like that. but that's just a quick guess.
>>
>> Nope. Forget bases. I told you that you do not need a knowledge
>> of bases to work out your problem and you definitely don't need
>> them for mine. In fact, they'll get in your way.
>
>dull. and without illumination. is that redundant?

If you insist that you can't assume a value for 3, base 3 is getting
in your way.

>
>> >see how easy that was?
>> >
>> >no shame. no dread. guesses. inquiry. freedom. learnin'.
>>
>> But you don't want to learn. You want to stick to your poorly
>> understood prior knowledge.
>
>put your answer where your tedious bullshit is, chicken-boy.

It's there, monkey. Now, do enjoy.

>
>there's only three actual choices to choose from (the
>4th is just a bit of humor) so your odds are pretty good:
>
>----------------------------- Q7
>
> IF This + Is = This
>
> AND This + This = That
> AND ThisIs + This = ThisThis
> AND ThisThis + That = ThatIs
>
> THEN That + This = ThisIs is:
>
> a] True
> a] False
> c] Unable to Determine
> d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y

You think "This" is a number?

>
>-----------------------------
>
>> >> Towse, John Ashby, please wait till Zero's pissed his pants
>> >> before supplying the correct answer.
>> >
>> >Zen, i don't share that ego thinger that you, Ray, Goalpost,
>> >and about a dozen other maniacs here in misc.writing do.
>>
>> You do. You have spent months trying to prove yourself right
>> about logic, when you were, and still are, wrong.
>
>it's already been proven. months ago. get up to speed.
>
>> >i don't obsessively proof my posts. i admit my mistakes.
>>
>> I'm yet to see it.
>
>yikes.
>
>> >i evolve as i'm presented with new knowledge, etc..
>> >
>> >see, i'm willing to look stupid. it doesn't bother me. at all.
>> >
>> >i fully realize that i am not perfect. sorry 'bout that.
>> >
>> >and because i'm willing to look stupid, i learn more.
>> >
>> >HTH.
>> >
>> >that's partly why i could so easily figure out how 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
>> >could be explained to be TRUE mathematically AND logically.
>>
>> It is not and cannot be true mathematically.
>
>it IS, and can. it's like, totally inexorable, Dude.

Yawn. Is that the time? Couple more sentences.

>
>> >which is why i can see how 2 + 2 = 3 + 3 so easily and you can't.
>> >(or why you don't have the grace to admit that you see it too).
>>
>> You managed to make it true by redefining "=".
>
>i didn't alter it at all. i simply noticed the existing relationship.

One more sentence.

>
>silly as it is. but no sillier than 1 + 2 = 3.

Bye.

gekko

unread,

Dec 7, 2005, 6:32:01 PM12/7/05

A writer is someone who has written today. Dr Zen
<longho...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Fuck off if snarkiness is all you have to offer.
>

PKB.

hypersensitive little cunt.

--
gekko

How much C could a C++ if a C+ could +C?

Zero

unread,

Dec 8, 2005, 5:09:19 AM12/8/05

Dr Zen wrote:

yeah, right. YOU know, and I know, that that "This and That"
thinger inexorably proves that your classical logic is flawed.

and that no matter what answer you give, it proves how flawed
your classical logic is. that's why you refuse to answer it.

----------------------------- Q7

IF This + Is = This

AND This + This = That
AND ThisIs + This = ThisThis
AND ThisThis + That = ThatIs

THEN That + This = ThisIs is:

a] True
b] False

c] Unable to Determine
d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y

-----------------------------

but one more logical question: do you think that your wimpy
chicken-shitted Unicorn-riding monkey-jockey refusal to answer
that logical "This and That" thinger changes the fact that your
classical logic is flawed? FFS, you can't be THAT stupid, can you?

> >> >until one realizes that their particular "logic" is flawed.

> >> >as you will shortly, once you stop being so afraid to commit
> >> >to some answers to some of the logic questions i've asked you.
> >> >like the "This and That" thinger -- as well as daring to show
> >> >your work. i mean, whoa. it's like pulling teeth.
> >>
> >> There is no work. The "This and That" thinger was nonsense.
> >
> >nope. it was absolutely nonsense-free (albeit humorous).
>
> It made my head make a grinding noise.

no doubt. the pains of your illogic making their way to your brain.

> >nope. it was absolutely nonsense-free (albeit humorous).

> >except, of course, for your nonsensical flawed logic.
> >
> >but that's the part whot helped make it funny.
> >
> >> >i know you'd rather pretend that you're holding out on me for
> >> >the joy of it, or to teach moi with tough love, to make me work
> >> >for it, but... bzzzt. i can see thru that scam.
> >> >
> >> >need i remind you of FOITN?
> >
> >FOUITN
> >
> >> >and your Martian-peach-eating "property is theft" nonsense, etc.?
> >>
> >> Property is theft.
> >
> >yeah, right. you eat a peach and you're stealing it from
> >the Martians. and the Orions. and the rest of the infinite
> >possible population of the infinite possible universe.
>
> If you like. I'm a humanist and don't worry too much about Martians.

that's because you're a totally _illogical_ humanist.

> >yeah, right. you eat a peach and you're stealing it from
> >the Martians. and the Orions. and the rest of the infinite
> >possible population of the infinite possible universe.
> >

> >sure. right. real "logical". pristine, in fact.

[...] (see also future post: 0zk3-32)

> > 0zk3-24 http://tinyurl.com/aloeg
> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/4474dc36473c3d62
> >
> >but to each his own, aye?
>
> You had the wrong reason for thinking it true anyway.

i said it was TRUE because the premise was False.

IOW: the premise contained a logical contradiction.
you can't have p and not p, as you're so fond of claiming.
in your example, you have utterly failed to show otherwise.

> >perhaps i'm still wrong, but i chose TRUE (due to the False premise).
>
> No. The false premise thing is wrong. The premise is not false.

again, you can't have p and not p, as you're so fond of claiming.

> get more if into your life, monkey boy. Lots more.

FOUITN

> >> >because:
> >> >
> >> > AND 10 + 1 = 11
> >> > AND 11 + 2 = 20
> >> > AND 11 + 3 = 22
> >> >
> >> >is, from what i can tell at a fairly quick glance, a
> >> >contradiction. it appears to be a premise using two
> >> >unique number bases without properly differentiating them.
> >> >therefore FALSE.
> >>
> >> Nope. It's completely true and completely disproves your thesis.
> >
> >how so?
>
> Your thesis is that you could only answer your questions 1 and 2
> by reference to base 3.

no, "my thesis" is that YOU were using the fundamentals of Base
Three to get the answer you got in Q1, etc., AND that you were
trying to deny it (totally unsuccessfully, i might add).

> I disprove it by showing that you answer them by reference to the
> logic, regardless what the symbols are meant to stand for.

nope. YOU did not do that. not in the least bit.

>Towse showed you the same, but you're still too dumb to get it.

um... Sal tried a whole other method than you to get her answer,
using a selective consideration of the givens, but it doesn't fix
the problems with your classical logic for reasons i'll explain
after you answer the "This and That" thinger. Sal answered it.
you're using her here as your "proof". do you agree with her
answer to the "This and That" thinger? yes or no.

> >> Nice try. You lost.
> >
> >i don't understand how.
>
> I know you don't. You've been jumping up and down like a stung
> monkey for months because you don't.

yeah, right. because i put the Unicornian logic thinger in my sig?
that stung you that much for all those months, monkey-boy?

i certainly don't doubt it. flawless logic can sting the illogical.

> IF. Take a note, monkey boy. IF.

LOL.

> See that word? It makes the untrue true.

um... nope. it does not. "IF" merely poses a scenario.

the scenario posed does not necessarily have to be untrue. duh.

IF this is using english THEN your logic is culturally crippled

[...] (see also future post: 0zk3-32)

> >> >similar to saying 1 + 2 = 3 AND 1 + 2 = 10
> >>
> >> Yes, that's possible too.
> >
> >nope.
>
> Yeppers. IF.

nope. you can't have p and not p. 3 != 10

3 = 3, 10 = 10

3 != 10, 2 != 10, 1 != 10, 0 != 10, 9 != 10, 8 != 10, 7 != 10,
6 != 10, 5 != 10, 4 != 10, etc.

3 != 2, 1 != 2, 9 != 2, 8 != 2, 7 != 2, 6 != 2, 5 != 2, 4 != 2

etc.

> >> IF 1 + 2 = 10
> >> AND 3 = 10
> >>
> >> THEN 1 + 2 = 3
> >>
> >> is perfectly logical too.
> >
> >sorry, but 3 cannot = 10. you're breaking the rules.
>
> What rules? I made the rules in step one.

the rules of logic. they're inexorable. you can't make them up.
(well, you CAN make them up, but then you'll probably have something
called culturally crippled logic, not logic).

> >"three" can, but not "3".
>
> Sorry, yes it can. It can be whatever I choose.

nope.

> >neither can -5, -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
> >11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, etc. (nor any fraction inbetween).
> >
> >numerical inexorableness or some such.
>
> Nope.

yep.

> >it's what you're always bitching about when you say that
> >3 = 2 is not allowed
>
> It's allowed. But if you say:
>
> IF 3 = 2
> AND 3 > 2

which is what you did when you said: 11 + 2 = 20 AND 11 + 3 = 22

> THEN any conclusion is true.

exactly.

> >(though you seem to think that you need to specify
> >that 3 > 2 for some absurd reason
>
> No, it doesn't have to be 3 > 2. Just not both.

3 is always > 2. it's numerically inexorable. no need to state it.

numbers cannot be made into variables. sorry.

> Unless you want unicorns to run in the Derby.

case closed, monkey-jockey-boy.

> >-- Mrs. 3 Smith please meet Mrs. 3 Jones and whatnot --
> >absolute sillyseason, in my view).
> >
> >> Give up now. You've lost. Thoroughly so.
> >
> >on the contrary. Gawwwd. IOW: reverse polarity, monkey-boy.
>
> Yes. Reverse polarity. Monkey.

"Yes, we have no bananas!"
-- Zenny
[the Martian-peach-eating squirrely chicken-
shitted Unicorn-riding monkey-jockey-boy]

who refused to answer the "This and That" logic question.

----------------------------- Q7

IF This + Is = This

AND This + This = That
AND ThisIs + This = ThisThis
AND ThisThis + That = ThatIs

THEN That + This = ThisIs is:

a] True
b] False

c] Unable to Determine
d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y

-----------------------------

"see this?!
this is this.
this ain't something else...
THIS is THIS..."
-- Mike
[actor: Robert De Niro; from the
movie: "The Deer Hunter" (1978)]

> >i won the Unicornian Math argument months and months ago.
> >
> >you are just one stubborn puppy.
> >
> >> >though it's possible that technically it's Unable to Determine.
> >>
> >> No.
> >
> >attempt to remotely explain or bore. your call.
>
> I've explained. IF you were smart, you would quit while you're
> only a mile behind.

i'm a mile *behind*? um... not quite, Unicorn-boy.

"Yes, we have no bananas!"
-- Zenny
[the Martian-peach-eating squirrely chicken-
shitted Unicorn-riding monkey-jockey-boy]

who refused to answer the "This and That" logic question.

> Another thing untrue in this world but I can assume it!

assume the false and you can conclude anything you like.

but it doesn't necessarily make your conclusions true.

precisely _because_ of your culturally crippled logic.

> >but i always thought relentless tediosity was Raypert's gig.
> >
> >> >i'd be stunned if it were TRUE.
> >>
> >> It's completely true.
> >
> >calling all Rayperts, calling all Rayperts! magic wand sale!
>
> Even Ray knows it's true.

Dude, when you're reduced to using Raypert as your witness,
yikes, you won't even be able to use your magic wands for
cocktail stir-sticks.

[...] (see also future post: 0zk3-32)

> >> >see how easy that was?
> >> >
> >> >no shame. no dread. guesses. inquiry. freedom. learnin'.
> >>
> >> But you don't want to learn. You want to stick to your poorly
> >> understood prior knowledge.
> >
> >put your answer where your tedious bullshit is, chicken-boy.
>
> It's there, monkey. Now, do enjoy.

answer Q7:

> >there's only three actual choices to choose from (the
> >4th is just a bit of humor) so your odds are pretty good:
> >
> >----------------------------- Q7
> >
> > IF This + Is = This
> >
> > AND This + This = That
> > AND ThisIs + This = ThisThis
> > AND ThisThis + That = ThatIs
> >
> > THEN That + This = ThisIs is:
> >
> > a] True

> > b] False

> > c] Unable to Determine
> > d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
>
> You think "This" is a number?

[a], [b], [c], or [d]? which is it, monkey-jockey-boy?

[...] (see also future post: 0zk3-32)

> >> >[because i don't have a maniacal ego and don't mind looking
> >> > stupid sometimes -- learning so much more that way]
>
> >> >that's partly why i so easily figured out how 2 + 2 = 3 + 3

> >> >could be explained to be TRUE mathematically AND logically.
> >>
> >> It is not and cannot be true mathematically.
> >
> >it IS, and can. it's like, totally inexorable, Dude.
>
> Yawn. Is that the time? Couple more sentences.

translation: "I'm too bored and I'm bailing out."

> >> >which is why i can see how 2 + 2 = 3 + 3 so easily and
> >> >you can't. (or why you don't have the grace to admit
> >> >that you see it too).
> >>
> >> You managed to make it true by redefining "=".
> >
> >i didn't alter it at all. i simply noticed the existing
> >relationship.
>
> One more sentence.

Q7: [a], [b], [c], or [d]? which is it, monkey-jockey-boy?

> >silly as it is. but no sillier than 1 + 2 = 3.
>
> Bye.

translation: "I'm too bored and I'm bailing out."

cha' ching! $27.75 US. http://www.paypal.com

[...] (see also future post: 0zk3-32)

-$Zero... Anywaysers,Zenny-boy... IDoSoHopeYou'llFindTheInterest...
ToAnswerTheAboveLogicQuestion... It'sThat"ThisAndThat"Thinger...

WhichYouClaimIs"FuckingNonsense"... ButItDefinitelyIsn't...

"...and that, my liege,
is how we know the Earth
to be banana-shaped."
-- Bedevere
[actor: Terry Jones; from the movie:
"Monty Python and the Holy Grail" (1974)]

-------------- Introducing Unicornian Mathematics/Logic: --------------

"is this the right room for an argument?"
-- Argument Consumer
[actor: Michael Palin; from the
Monty Python "Argument Sketch"]

------------------------------- 0zk3-31 -------------------------------

Dr Zen

unread,

Dec 8, 2005, 6:24:26 PM12/8/05

Eek! A mouse... erm, sorry, no, it's "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com>
doing the squeaking, and it goes like this:

I'm afraid not.

>and that no matter what answer you give, it proves how flawed
>your classical logic is. that's why you refuse to answer it.

Classical logic is flawed? I think you're flawed and the logic is
fine. How about that?

>
>----------------------------- Q7
>
> IF This + Is = This
>
> AND This + This = That
> AND ThisIs + This = ThisThis
> AND ThisThis + That = ThatIs
>
> THEN That + This = ThisIs is:
>
> a] True
> b] False
> c] Unable to Determine
> d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
>
>-----------------------------
>
>but one more logical question: do you think that your wimpy
>chicken-shitted Unicorn-riding monkey-jockey refusal to answer
>that logical "This and That" thinger changes the fact that your
>classical logic is flawed? FFS, you can't be THAT stupid, can you?

I told you. Your This and That thinger is bullshit. You are either
using the words as though they were numbers or you are using them as
words. In the former case, I believe you've made an error; in the
latter, it's unable to determine.

>
>> >> >until one realizes that their particular "logic" is flawed.
>> >> >as you will shortly, once you stop being so afraid to commit
>> >> >to some answers to some of the logic questions i've asked you.
>> >> >like the "This and That" thinger -- as well as daring to show
>> >> >your work. i mean, whoa. it's like pulling teeth.
>> >>
>> >> There is no work. The "This and That" thinger was nonsense.
>> >
>> >nope. it was absolutely nonsense-free (albeit humorous).
>>
>> It made my head make a grinding noise.
>
>no doubt. the pains of your illogic making their way to your brain.

No, trying to figure out what you are trying to prove.

>
>
>> >nope. it was absolutely nonsense-free (albeit humorous).
>> >except, of course, for your nonsensical flawed logic.
>> >
>> >but that's the part whot helped make it funny.
>> >
>> >> >i know you'd rather pretend that you're holding out on me for
>> >> >the joy of it, or to teach moi with tough love, to make me work
>> >> >for it, but... bzzzt. i can see thru that scam.
>> >> >
>> >> >need i remind you of FOITN?
>> >
>> >FOUITN
>> >
>> >> >and your Martian-peach-eating "property is theft" nonsense, etc.?
>> >>
>> >> Property is theft.
>> >
>> >yeah, right. you eat a peach and you're stealing it from
>> >the Martians. and the Orions. and the rest of the infinite
>> >possible population of the infinite possible universe.
>>
>> If you like. I'm a humanist and don't worry too much about Martians.
>
>that's because you're a totally _illogical_ humanist.

Logic is inexorable.

>
>
>> >yeah, right. you eat a peach and you're stealing it from
>> >the Martians. and the Orions. and the rest of the infinite
>> >possible population of the infinite possible universe.
>> >
>> >sure. right. real "logical". pristine, in fact.
>
>[...] (see also future post: 0zk3-32)
>
>
>> > 0zk3-24 http://tinyurl.com/aloeg
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/4474dc36473c3d62
>> >
>> >but to each his own, aye?
>>
>> You had the wrong reason for thinking it true anyway.
>
>i said it was TRUE because the premise was False.
>
>IOW: the premise contained a logical contradiction.

No, it did not. You need to differentiate a contradiction from a
contrafactual. The former will make any conclusion true; the latter is
what you're having problems with.

>you can't have p and not p, as you're so fond of claiming.

That's true.

>in your example, you have utterly failed to show otherwise.

Zero, your problem here is that you think "p" is "use base three", but
you didn't ever set that out as an assumption.

>> >perhaps i'm still wrong, but i chose TRUE (due to the False premise).
>>
>> No. The false premise thing is wrong. The premise is not false.
>
>again, you can't have p and not p, as you're so fond of claiming.

Yes, that's right. But you have not demonstrated that 1 + 2 = 10
*necessarily implies* "3 may not be used as a number".

>> get more if into your life, monkey boy. Lots more.
>
>FOUITN
>
>> >> >because:
>> >> >
>> >> > AND 10 + 1 = 11
>> >> > AND 11 + 2 = 20
>> >> > AND 11 + 3 = 22
>> >> >
>> >> >is, from what i can tell at a fairly quick glance, a
>> >> >contradiction. it appears to be a premise using two
>> >> >unique number bases without properly differentiating them.
>> >> >therefore FALSE.
>> >>
>> >> Nope. It's completely true and completely disproves your thesis.
>> >
>> >how so?
>>
>> Your thesis is that you could only answer your questions 1 and 2
>> by reference to base 3.
>
>no, "my thesis" is that YOU were using the fundamentals of Base
>Three to get the answer you got in Q1, etc.

You are yet to prove any such thesis, and won't be able to since I had
no need to do that.

> AND that you were
>trying to deny it (totally unsuccessfully, i might add).
>
>
>> I disprove it by showing that you answer them by reference to the
>> logic, regardless what the symbols are meant to stand for.
>
>nope. YOU did not do that. not in the least bit.
>

Yes, of course I did.

>
>>Towse showed you the same, but you're still too dumb to get it.
>
>um... Sal tried a whole other method than you to get her answer,
>using a selective consideration of the givens, but it doesn't fix
>the problems with your classical logic for reasons i'll explain
>after you answer the "This and That" thinger. Sal answered it.
>you're using her here as your "proof". do you agree with her
>answer to the "This and That" thinger? yes or no.

I didn't look at it, to be honest. From what she said, I reckon she
saw the same problem I did though.

>
>> >> Nice try. You lost.
>> >
>> >i don't understand how.
>>
>> I know you don't. You've been jumping up and down like a stung
>> monkey for months because you don't.
>
>yeah, right. because i put the Unicornian logic thinger in my sig?
>that stung you that much for all those months, monkey-boy?

No, I mostly ignore your posts. I've chosen to whip you for a few days
because you've been quiet and I'm worried that you're not having fun.

>
>i certainly don't doubt it. flawless logic can sting the illogical.
>
>
>> IF. Take a note, monkey boy. IF.
>
>LOL.
>
>
>> See that word? It makes the untrue true.
>
>um... nope. it does not. "IF" merely poses a scenario.
>
>the scenario posed does not necessarily have to be untrue. duh.

No, of course not. I didn't say it did. But it doesn't necessarily
have to be true either, dullard.

>
>
> IF this is using english THEN your logic is culturally crippled

Impossible to determine.

>
>
>[...] (see also future post: 0zk3-32)
>
>
>> >> >similar to saying 1 + 2 = 3 AND 1 + 2 = 10
>> >>
>> >> Yes, that's possible too.
>> >
>> >nope.
>>
>> Yeppers. IF.
>
>nope. you can't have p and not p. 3 != 10

It is if I assume it is.

>
> 3 = 3, 10 = 10

IF 3 = 10, THEN 3 = 10.

Hurray! I've fixed your problem.

>
> 3 != 10, 2 != 10, 1 != 10, 0 != 10, 9 != 10, 8 != 10, 7 != 10,
> 6 != 10, 5 != 10, 4 != 10, etc.

Get more IF into your life.

>
> 3 != 2, 1 != 2, 9 != 2, 8 != 2, 7 != 2, 6 != 2, 5 != 2, 4 != 2
>
>etc.
>
>
>> >> IF 1 + 2 = 10
>> >> AND 3 = 10
>> >>
>> >> THEN 1 + 2 = 3
>> >>
>> >> is perfectly logical too.
>> >
>> >sorry, but 3 cannot = 10. you're breaking the rules.
>>
>> What rules? I made the rules in step one.
>
>the rules of logic.

The rules of logic do not say what can be assumed, buddy. They say
what can be done with what is assumed.

> they're inexorable.

Yes, that's true. You're trying to fight them but you're losing badly.

> you can't make them up.
>(well, you CAN make them up, but then you'll probably have something
>called culturally crippled logic, not logic).
>
>
>> >"three" can, but not "3".
>>
>> Sorry, yes it can. It can be whatever I choose.
>
>nope.
>

Yes. The power of IF.

IF all heads have tongues AND IF you have three heads, THEN you have
three tongues.

Now, does a cabbage have a tongue?

True or not?

>> >neither can -5, -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
>> >11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, etc. (nor any fraction inbetween).
>> >
>> >numerical inexorableness or some such.
>>
>> Nope.
>
>yep.

It simply doesn't exist.

Dr Zen
Godless. Potless. Not Completely Hopeless.
http://gollyg.blogspot.com

Dr Zen

unread,

Dec 8, 2005, 6:26:58 PM12/8/05

Eek! A mouse... erm, sorry, no, it's "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com>
doing the squeaking, and it goes like this:

>> IF 3 = 2

>> AND 3 > 2
>
>which is what you did when you said: 11 + 2 = 20 AND 11 + 3 = 22
>

Perhaps you'd like to show how?

>> THEN any conclusion is true.
>
>exactly.
>
>
>> >(though you seem to think that you need to specify
>> >that 3 > 2 for some absurd reason
>>
>> No, it doesn't have to be 3 > 2. Just not both.
>
>3 is always > 2. it's numerically inexorable. no need to state it.

IF defeats numerical inexorability. IF makes unicorns fly and pigs
quote Chekhov.

>
>numbers cannot be made into variables. sorry.

You must have mistaken logic for algebra.

gekko

unread,

Dec 8, 2005, 7:44:43 PM12/8/05

I asked for a puppy. Instead, Dr Zen <longho...@gmail.com> posted
in news:e5ghp11gn4m7na007...@4ax.com:

> <hose boringness>

How can you speak of anything in that which you hosed, lying cunt?

--
gekko

It is much more comfortable to be mad and know it, than to be sane and
have one's doubts. - G. B. Burgin

Dr Zen

unread,

Dec 8, 2005, 7:53:16 PM12/8/05

Eek! A mouse... erm, sorry, no, it's gekko
<ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.INVALID> doing the squeaking, and it goes
like this:

>I asked for a puppy. Instead, Dr Zen <longho...@gmail.com> posted

>in news:e5ghp11gn4m7na007...@4ax.com:
>
>
>> <hose boringness>
>
>How can you speak of anything in that which you hosed, lying cunt?

What are the chances of what I hosed not being boring?

Zero

unread,

Dec 9, 2005, 1:29:15 AM12/9/05

Dr Zen wrote:

> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> IF 3 = 2
> >> AND 3 > 2
> >
> >which is what you did when you said: 11 + 2 = 20 AND 11 + 3 = 22
>
> Perhaps you'd like to show how?

sure.

BTW: i perfectly agree that 3 = 2 is absurd because 3 > 2.

there's no need to state 3 > 2 other than to avoid useless
arguments like yours that claim that there's a Mrs. 3 Smith
as well as a Mrs. 3 Smith. there simply isn't. just because
a numeral can represent different number values in depending
on the base it is used in, does not mean that you can alter
their inexorable numeric relationship to eachother.

3 > 2. always.

anyway, the reason your example is just like:

IF 3 = 2
AND 3 > 2 (3 > 2 is not needed, but left there for you)

is because, in Base Three [*]:

11 + 2 = 20

cannot non-contradicationally exist in the same set of
assumptions where this one appears:

11 + 3 = 22

unless you illegaly try to make the numerical symbol "3"
equal to the number/quantity "4", (using Base Three
reckoning) which you simply cannot do without creating
a massively huge logical contradiction.

because 3 != 4. ever. 3 < 4. always. by a magnitude of 1.

it's called inexorable numerics.

you CANNOT make numbers "variables" in logic.

numbers ARE what they ARE. EOFS. it's non-negotiable.

anyway, you couldn't even legally USE the numerical symbol 3 in
any non-contradictional way in a context where 11 + 2 = 20 AND
0 + 1 = 1. but let's assume that you could, for a moment.

even so... IF 11 + 2 = 20 THEN 11 + "THREE" = 21 (NOT 22)

it has to. there's an inexorable magnitude of ONE there.

[*] let alone other number Bases and THEIR inexorable
relational numerical dynamics.

i don't even think you could make your assumptions work using
Super Duper Advanced Unicornian Math, no matter what the Base
(given the rest of your assumptions), though it MAY be possible
to do so.

would you like to try?

better yet, would you like _me_ to try to save your ass here?

anyway... just for fun... let's consider the Unicornian Truth
regarding the number/quantity TEN vs the numeric symbol 10.

you'll note that in Base Three, 10 is an Odd (NOT Even) number.
because in Base Three, 10 represents the quantity/number THREE,
which is inexorably an Odd number/quantity (no matter what
inexorably ordered numeric symbols one uses to represent it).

OTOH, the _quantity_ TEN is ALWAYS an Even number/quantity
(no matter what inexorably ordered numeric symbols one uses
to represent IT).

for instance, in Base Two, the number/quantity TEN is
represented like so:

1010 (one Eight, zero Fours, one Two, zero Ones) = TEN

however, in Base Three, the number/quantity TEN is represented
like so:

101 (one Nine, zero Threes, one One) = TEN

in Base Four, the number/quantity TEN is represented like so:

22 (two Fours, two Ones) = TEN

in Base Five, the number/quantity TEN is represented like so:

20 (two Fives, zero Ones) = TEN

in Base Six, the number/quantity TEN is represented like so:

14 (one Six, four Ones) = TEN

in Base Seven, the number/quantity TEN is represented like so:

13 (one Seven, Three Ones) = TEN

etc.

so, depending on the Base one uses to represent the number/
quantity TEN (which is inexorably Even) one will get the
following numeric representations (in Base Two thru Base Ten
respectively):

1010, 101, 22, 20, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10

each of which are EVEN because they represent the number TEN.
(which is ALWAYS an even number no matter how torturously
you squiggle it up).

and just for fun, let us consider Base One, which is by far
one of the most inefficient of our number Bases. Base One
would give us the following numeric representation for the
inexorably Even number/quantity TEN:

1,111,111,111

which is why we don't use Base One too often.

like, imagine writing the inexorably Odd number/quantity
ONE THOUSAND ONE using our totally inefficient Base One.

yikes. carpul tunnel-o-rama innit.

let alone considering the implications of representing
the inexorably Even number/quantity GOOGOLPLEX using the
absurdly awkward Base One to numerically symbolize it.

whoa.

see how that works?

Base One -- The Poor Man's (Idiots') Number Base

> >> THEN any conclusion is true.
> >
> >exactly.
> >
> >
> >> >(though you seem to think that you need to specify
> >> >that 3 > 2 for some absurd reason
> >>
> >> No, it doesn't have to be 3 > 2. Just not both.
> >
> >3 is always > 2. it's numerically inexorable.
> >
> >no need to state it.
>
> IF defeats numerical inexorability.

nope.

"IF" does NOT defeat numerical inexorability. it can't.

"IF" merely "flirts" with defeating it. "IF" is always
ultimately defeated by numerical inexorability. otherwise,
there is no logic at all.

is that what you're ready to concede? whatever.

anyway, you cannot have p and NOT p.

(not logically speaking, anyway).

> IF makes unicorns fly and pigs quote Chekhov.

well, yes, but it makes those premises invalid.

unless, of course, those fanciful premises are,
indeed, True.

cha' ching! 2 + 2 = 3 + 3 (when um = 0.5)

> >numbers cannot be made into variables. sorry.
>
> You must have mistaken logic for algebra.

no.

if you make a number a variable, you invalidate the premise.

3 != 2 because 3 > 2. always. EOFS.

the quantity/number THREE is _ALWAYS_ Greater Than TWO.

by a relational magnitude of 1 (ONE). always.

there's no way out for you on this.

you simply can't argue with real logic.

which is EXACTLY why you will not answer this utterly
creative genius smart-assed "This and That" thinger:

----------------------------- Q7

IF This + Is = This

AND This + This = That
AND ThisIs + This = ThisThis
AND ThisThis + That = ThatIs

THEN That + This = ThisIs is:

a] True
b] False
c] Unable to Determine
d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y

-----------------------------

_i_ made an error? LOL. that's rich.

"Yes, we have no bananas!"
-- Zenny

[the squirrely Martian-peach-eating chicken-

shitted Unicorn-riding monkey-jockey-boy
who refused to answer the "This and That"

logic question]

Q7: [a], [b], [c], or [d]? which is it, monkey-jockey-boy?

http://tinyurl.com/dl6x5
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/f297dc4b71669ea0

Gawd. you'd think you'd answer just to find out what Q8 is.

> <hose boringness>

yeah, right.

yikes. even Goalpost is laughing her logical ass off at you.

your hubris in this matter has outdone even her worst.

i expect that yours has been the longest meltdown in Usenet history.

> Dr Zen
> Godless. Potless. Not Completely Hopeless.

you're hopelessly illogical.

well, it would certainly appear so.

-$Zero... Unless,Zenny-boy... YouFinallyFindThe"Interest"...

ToAnswerTheAboveLogicQuestion... It'sThat"ThisAndThat"Thinger...
WhichYouClaimIs"FuckingNonsense"... ButItDefinitelyIsn't...

"...and that, my liege,
is how we know the Earth
to be banana-shaped."
-- Bedevere
[actor: Terry Jones; from the movie:
"Monty Python and the Holy Grail" (1974)]

-------------- Introducing Unicornian Mathematics/Logic: --------------

"Odd and Even is the binary nature of infinity." -- $Zero...

------------------------------- 0zk3-33 -------------------------------

Zero

unread,

Dec 9, 2005, 1:33:15 AM12/9/05

Zero wrote:

> Dr Zen wrote:
> > "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> IF 3 = 2
> > >> AND 3 > 2
> > >
> > >which is what you did when you said: 11 + 2 = 20 AND 11 + 3 = 22
> >
> > Perhaps you'd like to show how?
>
> sure.
>
> BTW: i perfectly agree that 3 = 2 is absurd because 3 > 2.
>
> there's no need to state 3 > 2 other than to avoid useless
> arguments like yours that claim that there's a Mrs. 3 Smith
> as well as a Mrs. 3 Smith.

Mrs. 3 Jones. sorry.

0zk3-37

Dr Zen

unread,

Dec 9, 2005, 1:57:29 AM12/9/05

Eek! A mouse... erm, sorry, no, it's "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com>
doing the squeaking, and it goes like this:

>Dr Zen wrote:

>
>> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> IF 3 = 2
>> >> AND 3 > 2
>> >
>> >which is what you did when you said: 11 + 2 = 20 AND 11 + 3 = 22
>>
>> Perhaps you'd like to show how?
>
>sure.
>
>BTW: i perfectly agree that 3 = 2 is absurd because 3 > 2.

Yes, that's right.

>
>there's no need to state 3 > 2 other than to avoid useless
>arguments like yours that claim that there's a Mrs. 3 Smith
>as well as a Mrs. 3 Smith. there simply isn't. just because
>a numeral can represent different number values in depending
>on the base it is used in, does not mean that you can alter
>their inexorable numeric relationship to eachother.

I can alter anything I like. Get the power of IF.

Look, one more time, just because I feel such great pity for you:

France is the capital of Paris. No question about that.

But:

IF all cities in China have public security bureaus
AND Paris is the capital of China
THEN Paris has a public security bureau

is TRUE

even though Paris is not the capital of China and does not have a PSB.

IF says "were this the case", not "this is the case".

>
> 3 > 2. always.

Nope.

IF 3 = 2

I just made it something else.

Power of IF.

>
>anyway, the reason your example is just like:
>
> IF 3 = 2
> AND 3 > 2 (3 > 2 is not needed, but left there for you)

Any conclusion is true.

>is because, in Base Three [*]:
>
> 11 + 2 = 20
>
>cannot non-contradicationally exist in the same set of
>assumptions where this one appears:
>
> 11 + 3 = 22
>
>unless you illegaly try to make the numerical symbol "3"
>equal to the number/quantity "4"

I didn't make it equal to anything. I simply said that IF 11 + 3 = 22,
THEN [some conclusion].

> (using Base Three
>reckoning) which you simply cannot do without creating
>a massively huge logical contradiction.
>

There's no contradiction whatsoever and I did not use "base three
reckoning".

>because 3 != 4. ever. 3 < 4. always. by a magnitude of 1.

IF 3 > 4, 3 !< 4

guess

TRUE!

Power of IF.

>it's called inexorable numerics.

Nope. Power of IF.

>you CANNOT make numbers "variables" in logic.

I can do whatever I choose with the power of IF.

>
>numbers ARE what they ARE. EOFS. it's non-negotiable.

Everything's negotiable with the power of IF.

>anyway, you couldn't even legally USE the numerical symbol 3 in
>any non-contradictional way in a context where 11 + 2 = 20 AND
>0 + 1 = 1. but let's assume that you could, for a moment.

IF 11 + 20 = 64
AND bananas are pink
AND unicorns run in the Derby

Whatever I choose!

>even so... IF 11 + 2 = 20 THEN 11 + "THREE" = 21 (NOT 22)
>
>it has to. there's an inexorable magnitude of ONE there.

Nope.

>[*] let alone other number Bases and THEIR inexorable
> relational numerical dynamics.
>
>i don't even think you could make your assumptions work using
>Super Duper Advanced Unicornian Math, no matter what the Base
>(given the rest of your assumptions), though it MAY be possible
>to do so.
>
>would you like to try?
>
>better yet, would you like _me_ to try to save your ass here?

Nope. Get some IF.

>
<tediosity hosed>

Dr Zen
Godless. Potless. Not Completely Hopeless.

http://gollyg.blogspot.com

Dr Zen

unread,

Dec 9, 2005, 1:58:20 AM12/9/05

Eek! A mouse... erm, sorry, no, it's "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com>
doing the squeaking, and it goes like this:

>Zero wrote:

No.

Dr Zen
Godless. Potless. Not Completely Hopeless.

http://gollyg.blogspot.com

Zero

unread,

Dec 9, 2005, 5:31:48 AM12/9/05

Dr Zen wrote:

> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Dr Zen wrote:

> >> >> IF 3 = 2
> >> >> AND 3 > 2
> >> >
> >> >which is what you did when you said:
> >> >11 + 2 = 20 AND 11 + 3 = 22
> >>
> >> Perhaps you'd like to show how?
> >
> >sure. BTW: i perfectly agree that 3 = 2 is absurd because 3 > 2.
>
> Yes, that's right.

but unfortunately for you, you keep insisting that:

(3 = 2) = (3 + 3 = 2 + 2)

which it most definitely does NOT.

duh and "3 != 2" triple double duh.

> >there's no need to state 3 > 2 other than to avoid useless
> >arguments like yours that claim that there's a Mrs. 3 Smith
> >as well as a Mrs. 3 Smith. there simply isn't. just because
> >a numeral can represent different number values in depending
> >on the base it is used in, does not mean that you can alter
> >their inexorable numeric relationship to eachother.
>
> I can alter anything I like.

um, no. you definitely can NOT alter anything you like.

3 > 2. inexorably. you can't lay a finger on it.

OTOH, you certainly may _suppose_ anything you like. sure. but...

apples and oranges. peaches and bananas. Martians and Orions.

you can NOT _alter_ the FACT that 3 > 2. under no circumstances.

you may _assume_ 3 = 2 all you want, but it invalidates your premise.

EOFS. EOFS. EOFS. EOFS. EOFS. EOFS. EOFS. EOFS. EOFS. EOFS.

k? that's TEN EOFS's. <--- that makes ELEVEN.

> Get the power of IF.

yeah.

IF: Zen eats a peach in Sydney...

THEN: Zen's stealing it from the Martians (and the Orions) etc.

sure. perfect logic. imagine half a clap.

> Look, one more time, just because I feel such great pity for you:

lucky moi, huh?

sounds like you're in the mood to move some goalposts. let's check:

> France is the capital of Paris. No question about that. But:
>
> IF all cities in China have public security bureaus
> AND Paris is the capital of China
> THEN Paris has a public security bureau
>
> is TRUE
>
> even though Paris is not the capital of China
> and does not have a PSB.
>
> IF says "were this the case", not "this is the case".

do you think i'm disagreeing with that? yikes. Q7, monkey-boy.

> > 3 > 2. always.
>
> Nope.

yes. ALWAYS. EOFS (#12).

> IF 3 = 2 I just made it something else.

um, no. you did NOT _make_ it something else.

you merely supposed a totally invalid and impossible scenario.

EOFS (#13).

> Power of IF.

power of impotent illogic.

(the impotence of your classical illogic).

not to mention all your impotent goalpost movings all over
Paris and China, FFS.

explain your classical "logic" inability to answer Q7 or
start waving the white flag profusely, and maybe we'll
honor the geneva conventions for good measure.

> >anyway, the reason your example is just like:
> >
> > IF 3 = 2
> > AND 3 > 2 (3 > 2 is not needed, but left there for you)
>
> Any conclusion is true.

agreed. because 3 = 2 is NOT possible. at all. cha' ching!

BTW: 3 > 2 is a given that need not be stated, except for twits.

you will NEVER EVER find a case where 3 = 2 ever works in any way.

you may suppose it from now until the end of all time. and back.

and it won't budge even an infinitely tiny scintilla of a micro micro.

unless, of course, God steps in and decides to recreate everything
just for kicks. and i mean EVERYTHING!

is that what you're banking on? good to hear it. beers all around.

party hats and good music. 3 quarter notes = 2 quarter notes.

(careful dancing, don't step on her toes on the half notes)

and B-Flat Sharp = F-Sharp Flat = D Natural Augmented!

all in the key of C! whoa.

"twnkle twinkle little star. abcdefg... etc."

> >is because, in Base Three [*]:
> >
> > 11 + 2 = 20
> >

> >cannot non-contradictionally exist in the same set of

> >assumptions where this one appears:
> >
> > 11 + 3 = 22
> >
> >unless you illegaly try to make the numerical symbol "3"
> >equal to the number/quantity "4"
>
> I didn't make it equal to anything.

THEN obviously you cannot add. cha'ching! cha'ching! cha'ching!

was that Five or One?

> I simply said that IF 11 + 3 = 22, THEN [some conclusion].

ANY conclusion would be True, because your premise is FALSE
(in the context of the other premises). the burden is upon
_you_ to show otherwise.

EOFS. (#14) in just this post alone, mind you.

> >(using Base Three reckoning)

that parenthesis was connected to the previous thought...

> >which you simply cannot do without creating a massively
> >huge logical contradiction.
>
> There's no contradiction whatsoever

um... let's rview:

IF:

0 + 1 = 1

1 + 1 = 2

10 + 1 = 11

11 + 2 = 20

11 + 3 = 22

THEN:

"some conclusion"

IS:

a] TRUE (but NOT due to the contradiction in the premise)

> There's no contradiction whatsoever

time to throw away your delusions of having any grasp on logic.

or show us something VERY interesting.

(other than pretending that 3 = 4 while you steal
3 = 4 peaches from the Martians and the Orions)

>and I did not use "base three reckoning".

yes, you did. in Q1, Q2, & Q3. [*]

you used absolutely NO reckoning in your own question, other
than purely invalid nonsense. give over.

[*] you're far too afraid to answer Q7.

> >because 3 != 4. ever. 3 < 4. always. by a magnitude of 1.
>
> IF 3 > 4, 3 !< 4

totally impossible. you cannot have p and not p.

3 < 4. supposing otherwise is supposing that p is not p.

EOFS. (#15)

> is
>
> guess
>
> TRUE!
>
> Power of IF.

power of psychosis. and/or foolish pride.

you cannot suppose that 3 > 4 without invalidating your premise.

try as you may, otherwise. you "think" you're being logically
consistent when all you're doing is being illogically insane.

> >it's called inexorable numerics.
>
> Nope. Power of IF.

impotence of illogic.

you might as well posit: IF p AND not p

it's an equally total absolute waste of logic time.

> >you CANNOT make numbers "variables" in logic.
>
> I can do whatever I choose with the power of IF.

you may suppose all you want. enjoy.

funny thing is, you can't even imagine an _IF_ that is _SO_.

like the IF that is SO when um = 0.5 (3+3=2+2)

> >numbers ARE what they ARE. EOFS. it's non-negotiable.
>
> Everything's negotiable with the power of IF.

nope. 3 != 2. ever. EOFS. (#16?... i'm losing count)

IOW: you will lose every attempt to negotiate 3 = 2.

> >anyway, you couldn't even legally USE the numerical symbol 3 in
> >any non-contradictional way in a context where 11 + 2 = 20 AND
> >0 + 1 = 1. but let's assume that you could, for a moment.
>
> IF 11 + 20 = 64
> AND bananas are pink
> AND unicorns run in the Derby
>
> Whatever I choose!

"they're coming to take me away, hee hee! ho ho!"

yes. whatever you choose. because your premise is not valid.

shall we loosen the straps a tad or do you actually prefer to keep
eating your chunky banana meals thru that annoyingly tedious straw?

> >even so... IF 11 + 2 = 20 THEN 11 + "THREE" = 21 (NOT 22)
> >
> >it has to. there's an inexorable magnitude of ONE there.
>
> Nope.

yeppers. just count it up. it ain't difficult.

it's no wonder AT ALL why you REFUSE to agree to an independent
third-party judge for our wager. all your Paris, China goalposts
sound good for distractional banter, but when push comes to shove,
1 + 1 = 2, not banana chunks.

unless of course, um != 0.

because: IF um != 0 THEN 1 + 1 could = almost ANYTHING!

put _that_ "IF" in your broken & tattered 3=2 delusional
monkey-pipe and try to smoke it, yes-we-have-no-bananas-boy.

> >[*] let alone other number Bases and THEIR inexorable
> > relational numerical dynamics.
> >
> >i don't even think you could make your assumptions work using
> >Super Duper Advanced Unicornian Math, no matter what the Base
> >(given the rest of your assumptions), though it MAY be possible
> >to do so.
> >
> >would you like to try?
> >
> >better yet, would you like _me_ to try to save your ass here?
>
> Nope. Get some IF.

here's some "IF" for ya:

----------------------------- Q7

IF This + Is = This

AND This + This = That
AND ThisIs + This = ThisThis
AND ThisThis + That = ThatIs

THEN That + This = ThisIs is:

a] True
b] False
c] Unable to Determine
d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y

-----------------------------

"Yes, we have no bananas!"

-- Zenny
[the squirrely Martian-peach-eating chicken-
shitted Unicorn-riding monkey-jockey-boy

who STILL refuses to answer the utterly
Mind-Blowing "This and That" logic question]

Q7: [a], [b], [c], or [d]? which is it, monkey-jockey-boy?

http://tinyurl.com/dl6x5
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/f297dc4b71669ea0

> <tediosity hosed>

um... Zenny... pal...

your silly hose has so many holes in it, it can't even hose _itself_.

Q7: [a], [b], [c], or [d]? which is it, monkey-jockey-boy?

-$Zero... WhenWillZenny-boy... FinallyFindThe"Interest"...
ToAnswerTheAboveLogicQuestion... ThatElegant"ThisAndThat"Thinger...
WhichZennyboyClaimIs"FuckingNonsense"... ButDefinitelyIs_NOT_...

"...and that, my liege,
is how we know the Earth
to be banana-shaped."
-- Bedevere
[actor: Terry Jones; from the movie:
"Monty Python and the Holy Grail" (1974)]

-------------- Introducing Unicornian Mathematics/Logic: --------------

All "Logic" is culturally crippled, so STOP being
such foolishly proud assholes and START working on
your atrocious communication skills, instead. Duh.
There's wayyy more worthwhile stuff to agree about
than there is worthless stuff to disagree about.
Double duh.

------------------------------- 0zk3-38 -------------------------------

Dr Zen

unread,

Dec 9, 2005, 5:42:36 PM12/9/05

Eek! A mouse... erm, sorry, no, it's "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com>
doing the squeaking, and it goes like this:

>Dr Zen wrote:

>
>> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > Dr Zen wrote:
>
>> >> >> IF 3 = 2
>> >> >> AND 3 > 2
>> >> >
>> >> >which is what you did when you said:
>> >> >11 + 2 = 20 AND 11 + 3 = 22
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps you'd like to show how?
>> >
>> >sure. BTW: i perfectly agree that 3 = 2 is absurd because 3 > 2.
>>
>> Yes, that's right.
>
>but unfortunately for you, you keep insisting that:
>
> (3 = 2) = (3 + 3 = 2 + 2)
>

Of course it doesn't.

>which it most definitely does NOT.

No, it clearly doesn't.

>
>duh and "3 != 2" triple double duh.

Unless I assume 3 = 2, then it does.

>
>
>> >there's no need to state 3 > 2 other than to avoid useless
>> >arguments like yours that claim that there's a Mrs. 3 Smith
>> >as well as a Mrs. 3 Smith. there simply isn't. just because
>> >a numeral can represent different number values in depending
>> >on the base it is used in, does not mean that you can alter
>> >their inexorable numeric relationship to eachother.
>>
>> I can alter anything I like.
>
>um, no. you definitely can NOT alter anything you like.

Yes, I can. Get some IF into your life.

>
> 3 > 2. inexorably. you can't lay a finger on it.

IF 3 = 2

Wow, I just did!

>
>OTOH, you certainly may _suppose_ anything you like. sure. but...

Yes. I can suppose anything I like. That's the beauty of IF.

>
>apples and oranges. peaches and bananas. Martians and Orions.

I can assume apples are oranges, peaches are bananas, Martians are
Orions. I can assume *anything I can put into words*

>
>you can NOT _alter_ the FACT that 3 > 2. under no circumstances.

I can assume any fact is any other fact.

>you may _assume_ 3 = 2 all you want, but it invalidates your premise.

What premise?

>EOFS. EOFS. EOFS. EOFS. EOFS. EOFS. EOFS. EOFS. EOFS. EOFS.
>
>k? that's TEN EOFS's. <--- that makes ELEVEN.

>> Get the power of IF.
>
>yeah.
>
> IF: Zen eats a peach in Sydney...
>
> THEN: Zen's stealing it from the Martians (and the Orions) etc.

Now you're getting it.

>sure. perfect logic. imagine half a clap.
>
>
>> Look, one more time, just because I feel such great pity for you:
>
>lucky moi, huh?
>
>sounds like you're in the mood to move some goalposts. let's check:
>
>
>> France is the capital of Paris. No question about that. But:
>>
>> IF all cities in China have public security bureaus
>> AND Paris is the capital of China
>> THEN Paris has a public security bureau
>>
>> is TRUE
>>
>> even though Paris is not the capital of China
>> and does not have a PSB.
>>
>> IF says "were this the case", not "this is the case".
>
>do you think i'm disagreeing with that?

Yes. <rest hosed>

Zero

unread,

Dec 10, 2005, 5:01:29 AM12/10/05

Dr Zen wrote:

> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Dr Zen wrote:

> >> >> >> IF 3 = 2
> >> >> >> AND 3 > 2
> >> >> >
> >> >> >which is what you did when you said:
> >> >> >11 + 2 = 20 AND 11 + 3 = 22
> >> >>
> >> >> Perhaps you'd like to show how?
> >> >
> >> >sure. BTW: i perfectly agree that 3 = 2 is absurd because 3 > 2
> >>

> >> Yes, that's right.
> >
> >but unfortunately for you, you keep insisting that:
> >
> > (3 = 2) = (3 + 3 = 2 + 2)
>
> Of course it doesn't.

well, you're finally making a slight bit of progress. good.

> >which it most definitely does NOT.
>
> No, it clearly doesn't.

very good. see how easy that was to admit?

> >duh... and "3 != 2" triple double duh.

>
> Unless I assume 3 = 2, then it does.

but then your premise is invalid. EOFS.

and keep in mind (assuming your mind is strong enough to handle it):

firstly, that "3 = 2" assumption of yours was not given in the
Unicornian "3 + 3 = 2 + 2" thinger. not in any way, shape, or
form (other than your own unwarranted assumption -- an invalid
unwarranted assumption at that).

secondly, that 3 = 2 "assumption" is an IMPOSSIBLE assumption.

set theory settles that.

"You cannot change the operators" -- Zen (paraphrasing)

that 3 = 2 "assumption" is an IMPOSSIBLE assumption.

p cannot equal NOT p

(as you are so fond of noting).

3 != 2. it cannot. (p) != (NOT p)

it's numerically inexorable.

discreet numerals CANNOT be made into logical variables.

3 > 2. always.

assuming otherwise assumes p = NOT p

obligatory recue:

> >but unfortunately for you, you keep insisting that:
> >
> > (3 = 2) = (3 + 3 = 2 + 2)
>
> Of course it doesn't.
>

> >duh... and "3 != 2" triple double duh.

>
> Unless I assume 3 = 2, then it does.

nope. you cannot assume that p = !p and "then it does".

but sure, when evaluating a "logic" problem, YOU can assume
anything you want, i suppose, even if those assumptions of
yours are not stated or implied in the premise, but it's that
"assuming anything you want" idiocy that has gotten you into
all of this illogical trouble.

it's precisely what's wrong with your classical logic bullshit.

a lack of logical precision.

the truly logical answer to the Q7 "This and That" logic thinger
settles our multi-year argument/wager about the brown-haired "Beth".

once and for all. EOFS (and you know it).

which is exactly why you REFUSE to answer the Q7 logic question.

cha' ching! pay up.

> >> >there's no need to state 3 > 2 other than to avoid useless
> >> >arguments like yours that claim that there's a Mrs. 3 Smith

> >> >as well as a Mrs. 3 Jones. there simply isn't. just because
> >> >a numeral can represent different number values (depending
> >> >on the base it is used in) does NOT mean that you can alter

> >> >their inexorable numeric relationship to eachother.
> >>
> >> I can alter anything I like.
> >
> >um, no. you definitely can NOT alter anything you like.
>
> Yes, I can.

you can delude yourself. certainly. that's easy.

> Get some IF into your life.

IF p = NOT p

THEN "IF" = "$27.75 is owed to Zero by Zen"

cha' ching! htp://www.paypal.com

> > 3 > 2. inexorably. you can't lay a finger on it.
>
> IF 3 = 2
>
> Wow, I just did!

you might as well claim that you can drink the ocean in one gulp.

you can delude yourself about doing it, you can say "Wow, I just did!"

but you cannot do it.

3 != 2

it NEVER can. p cannot equal !p. invalid premise.

unlike your France, Paris, China BS (which is all arbitrary
naming of "geographically" _closed sets_) 3 cannot be validly
accepted as being equal to 2. it's numerically inexorable.
it's outside the axiom of identity.

it's like claiming:

IF France = China
AND France = Paris
AND France != China
AND France != Paris

THEN 3 = 2

but you see, due to the inexorable laws of logic, math, and
the axioms of identity, saying that "3 = 2" is 100% equivalent
to saying that:

a = b AND a != b

3 > 2 (by a factor of 1). it's logically inexorable.

IOW:

the number/quantity Three
is Greater Than
the number/quantity Two
by a factor of One.

throw that out, and you throw out all possible logic with it.

but this France/China/Paris crap is all tangential smokescreen
monkeywrench on your part.

the key to our whole wager is your inability/refusal to answer
Q7 (the brilliantly funny "This and That" thinger). i've got
you by your illogical balls and there's absolutely no way that
you can get around it. you know it, and i know it, and so does
anyone else who has any logical sense at all.

your squirrely throwing of monkeywrenches and smokescreens
to and fro only makes you look illogical, desperate, and silly.

but i'm enjoying the show, so keep avoiding answering Q7, if you
really feel you must. it won't change how flawed your logic is.

IF your foolish pride is really that foolish
AND you cannot be honest or logical
THEN keep making a fool out of yourself

ok, Mr. Booby Wayward? <--- who lies about third-party judges.

----------------------------- Q7

IF This + Is = This

AND This + This = That
AND ThisIs + This = ThisThis
AND ThisThis + That = ThatIs

THEN That + This = ThisIs is:

a] True
b] False
c] Unable to Determine
d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y

-----------------------------

"Yes, we have no bananas!"
-- Zenny
[the squirrely Martian-peach-eating chicken-shitted
Unicorn-riding monkey-jockey-boy who STILL refuses

to answer the utterly astounding and humorously
enlightening "This and That" logic question]

Q7: [a], [b], [c], or [d]? which is it, monkey-jockey-boy?

http://tinyurl.com/dl6x5
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/f297dc4b71669ea0

or just keep snipping it. keep claiming you're bored and bailing.

> >OTOH, you certainly may _suppose_ anything you like. sure. but...
>
> Yes. I can suppose anything I like. That's the beauty of IF.

right. but IF you suppose that p = !p, (read 3 = 2) then your
supposing is invalid, and makes your "logical" premise invalid,
thus making any conclusion you want just as true as the next.

but here's a challenge for you:

show how supposing that 3 = 2 can ever have any value whatsoever.

can it?

can you think of a useful logical conclusion which relies on 3 = 2?

i mean:

the actual number/quantity 3 = the actual number/quantity 2

don't waste our time with your nonsense that numerics can be variables.

there's no challenge in that anymore. it's tedious to argue it.

the Q7 "This and That" logic thinger settles that question forever.

no, the challenge i'm giving you is to come up with some reason
to suppose that 3 = 2. some useful purpose for that to be considerd
a valid premise which doesn't automatically invalidate a logic
question (such as you concede that assuming "p = !p" does).

any equation you like would be fine. are you up to it?

or are you simply going to insist it's "valid" for the sake of
claiming that your clasical logic is NOT flawed? sorry, but Q7
has made that argument inexorably moot.

IOW: it's an invalid argument.

your classical logic is flawed. there's no question about it.

your classical logic is simply not logical.

Q7 proves that inexorably innit.

> >apples and oranges. peaches and bananas. Martians and Orions.
>
> I can assume apples are oranges, peaches are bananas, Martians
> are Orions. I can assume *anything I can put into words*

tedious.

> >you can NOT _alter_ the FACT that 3 > 2. under no circumstances.
>
> I can assume any fact is any other fact.

and what happens when you assume that p = !p?

> >you may _assume_ 3 = 2 all you want, but it invalidates your premise.
>
> What premise?

any premise that includes the assumption that 3 = 2

> >EOFS. EOFS. EOFS. EOFS. EOFS. EOFS. EOFS. EOFS. EOFS. EOFS.
> >
> >k? that's TEN EOFS's. <--- that makes ELEVEN.
>
> >> Get the power of IF.
> >
> >yeah.
> >
> > IF: Zen eats a peach in Sydney...
> >
> > THEN: Zen's stealing it from the Martians (and the Orions) etc.
>
> Now you're getting it.

those poor Martians and Orions, etc. with you as their logic lawyer.

> >sure. perfect logic. imagine half a clap.
> >
> >> Look, one more time, just because I feel such great pity for you:
> >
> >lucky moi, huh?
> >
> >sounds like you're in the mood to move some goalposts. let's check:
> >
> >
> >> France is the capital of Paris. No question about that. But:
> >>
> >> IF all cities in China have public security bureaus
> >> AND Paris is the capital of China
> >> THEN Paris has a public security bureau
> >>
> >> is TRUE
> >>
> >> even though Paris is not the capital of China
> >> and does not have a PSB.
> >>
> >> IF says "were this the case", not "this is the case".
> >
> >do you think i'm disagreeing with that?
>
> Yes. <rest hosed>

translation: "Q7"

look, Zenny. firstly, France is NOT the capital of Paris.

Paris is a city in France. you're freaking out.

"France is the capital of Paris. No question about that."

but the big picture you're missing here is the axiom of identity
as it applies to set theory and language itself.

these are the limits and flaws of your flawed classical logic.

(which have been demonstrated brilliantly in Q7 [bowing] and
why you REFUSE to give the only truly logical answer available
to you using your utterly flawed classical logic).

give your answer to Q7 or forever be known as illogic-boy.

HINT: the truly logical answer to Q7 is the exact same answer
that i gave to the Brown-haired "Beth" thinger.

FOUITN

cha' ching! pay up.

obligatory unsnip from last post:

>> <tediosity hosed>

translation: "Q7"

>> <tediosity hosed>

your silly hose has so many holes in it, it can't even hose _itself_.

Q7: [a], [b], [c], or [d]? which is it, monkey-jockey-boy?

-$Zero... When,OhWhen... WillZenny-boy... FinallyFindThe"Interest"...
ToAnswerTheAboveLogicQuestion... ThatElegant"ThisAndThat"Thinger...
WhichZennyboyClaimsIs"FuckingNonsense"... ButDefinitelyIs_NOT_...

"...and that, my liege,
is how we know the Earth
to be banana-shaped."
-- Bedevere
[actor: Terry Jones; from the movie:
"Monty Python and the Holy Grail" (1974)]

-------------- Introducing Unicornian Mathematics/Logic: --------------

to wit:

Duh... and "3 != 2" Triple Double Duh...

------------------------------- 0zk3-40 -------------------------------

Zero

unread,

Dec 10, 2005, 8:55:29 AM12/10/05

Towse wrote:

> Zero wrote:
>
> > ----------------------------- Q7
> >
> > IF This + Is = This
> >
> > AND This + This = That
> > AND ThisIs + This = ThisThis
> > AND ThisThis + That = ThatIs
> >
> > THEN That + This = ThisIs is:
> >
> > a] True
> > b] False
> > c] Unable to Determine
> > d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
> >
> >

> > good luck, as always.
>
> IF A + B = A
> AND A + A = C
> AND D + A = E
> AND E + C = F
>
> THEN C + A = D is . ... [c] unable to determine

Sal, do you realize that this conclusion of yours contradicts
your reasoning in your other response to the same post?

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/d632dadc50115d5d

> > IF This + Is = This
> >
> > AND This + This = That
> > AND ThisIs + This = ThisThis
> > AND ThisThis + That = ThatIs
> >
> > THEN That + This = ThisIs is:
> >
> > a] True
> > b] False
> > c] Unable to Determine
> > d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y

> IF A + B = A
> AND A + A = C
> AND D + A = E
> AND E + C = F
>
> THEN C + A = D is . ... [c] unable to determine

perhaps.

but why?

can you explain it? can you put it into words?

(no pun intended, much)

IOW: what exactly is "Unable to Determine"?

certainly not whether classical logic is flawed.

this humorous little logic question settles that matter.

(assuming Zen has been mostly consistent in what he claims about same).

> You mis wrote your first IF...

what makes you assume that?

Towse

unread,

Dec 10, 2005, 12:23:28 PM12/10/05

Zero wrote:

> Towse wrote:
>
>
>>Zero wrote:
>>
>>
>>>----------------------------- Q7
>>>
>>> IF This + Is = This
>>>
>>> AND This + This = That
>>> AND ThisIs + This = ThisThis
>>> AND ThisThis + That = ThatIs
>>>
>>> THEN That + This = ThisIs is:
>>>
>>> a] True
>>> b] False
>>> c] Unable to Determine
>>> d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
>>>
>>>
>>>good luck, as always.
>>
>>IF A + B = A
>>AND A + A = C
>>AND D + A = E
>>AND E + C = F
>>
>>THEN C + A = D is . ... [c] unable to determine

> Sal, do you realize that this conclusion of yours contradicts
> your reasoning in your other response to the same post?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/d632dadc50115d5d

Well, no. It doesn't.

Surely, you can see the difference between the two sets of arguments.

>>> IF This + Is = This
>>>
>>> AND This + This = That
>>> AND ThisIs + This = ThisThis
>>> AND ThisThis + That = ThatIs
>>>
>>> THEN That + This = ThisIs is:
>>>
>>> a] True
>>> b] False
>>> c] Unable to Determine
>>> d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
>
>
>>IF A + B = A
>>AND A + A = C
>>AND D + A = E
>>AND E + C = F
>>
>>THEN C + A = D is . ... [c] unable to determine
>
>
> perhaps.
>
> but why?
>
> can you explain it? can you put it into words?
>
> (no pun intended, much)
>
>
> IOW: what exactly is "Unable to Determine"?

You have not defined your variables in relation to each other. Unable to
determine. Surely, you know the simple rules of logic.

> certainly not whether classical logic is flawed.
>
> this humorous little logic question settles that matter.
>
> (assuming Zen has been mostly consistent in what he claims about same).
>
>
>
>>You mis wrote your first IF...
>

Your first IF is such that your variables have no relation to each other
or the conclusion. If you want a conclusion, you needs must have an IF
that has something to do with the THEN.

> what makes you assume that?
>
> see also:
>
> Unicornian Mathematics, Logic, and Whatever
> The Obligatory Summary of The Summary
> 0zk3-05 http://tinyurl.com/887n7
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/8ca5f3fade8aa7aa
>
>>HTH!
>
> it sure helps as an aid to teach Zen a thing or two (2) about logic.
>
> ya' know... this, and that, and whatnot, and so forth, and so on.
>
> say, do you think Zen will ever have enough "interest" to actually
> come up with a single answer to the above logic question (which
> inexorably ends up settling the cute little logic wager between
> moi and Zenny)?
>
> place your bets.

From what I've seen, Zen and I are on the same page vis-a-vis logic and
logic rules and IF 2=3 THEN !2!=3.

--
Sal

Ye olde swarm of links: thousands of links for writers, researchers and
the terminally curious <http://www.internet-resources.com/writers>

Zero

unread,

Dec 10, 2005, 1:46:35 PM12/10/05

Towse wrote:
> Zero wrote:
> > Towse wrote:
> >> Zero wrote:
> >>>----------------------------- Q7
> >>>
> >>> IF This + Is = This
> >>>
> >>> AND This + This = That
> >>> AND ThisIs + This = ThisThis
> >>> AND ThisThis + That = ThatIs
> >>>
> >>> THEN That + This = ThisIs is:
> >>>
> >>> a] True
> >>> b] False
> >>> c] Unable to Determine
> >>> d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>good luck, as always.
> >>
> >>IF A + B = A
> >>AND A + A = C
> >>AND D + A = E
> >>AND E + C = F
> >>
> >>THEN C + A = D is . ... [c] unable to determine
>
> > Sal, do you realize that this conclusion of yours contradicts
> > your reasoning in your other response to the same post?
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/d632dadc50115d5d
>
> Well, no. It doesn't.

well, yes. it does.

> Surely, you can see the difference between the two sets of arguments.

yes. one uses numerals and one doesn't. so?

that's exactly my point in saying that 2 != 3, and never can.

because of the inexorable axiom of identity of numerics.

Zen disagrees. and apparently, so do you.

you both seem to think that any squiggle can mean anything in logic.

(the only thing you seem to respect is the +, -, =, >, <, etc.)

hence the contradiction in classical logic. hence i win the bet.

because classical logic is culturally crippled.

it's not pure logic.

> >>> IF This + Is = This
> >>>
> >>> AND This + This = That
> >>> AND ThisIs + This = ThisThis
> >>> AND ThisThis + That = ThatIs
> >>>
> >>> THEN That + This = ThisIs is:
> >>>
> >>> a] True
> >>> b] False
> >>> c] Unable to Determine
> >>> d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
> >
> >>IF A + B = A
> >>AND A + A = C
> >>AND D + A = E
> >>AND E + C = F
> >>
> >>THEN C + A = D is . ... [c] unable to determine
> >
> >
> > perhaps.
> >
> > but why?
> >
> > can you explain it? can you put it into words?
> >
> > (no pun intended, much)
> >
> >
> > IOW: what exactly is "Unable to Determine"?
>
> You have not defined your variables in relation to each other.

yes, i have.

IF This + Is = This

that means "Is" = 0.

> Unable to determine.

um, not quite. your other post argued just the opposite.

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/d632dadc50115d5d

> Surely, you know the simple rules of logic.

yes. logic must be logical. and consistent.

otherwise, it's flawed logic. EOFS.

> > certainly not whether classical logic is flawed.
> >
> > this humorous little logic question settles that matter.
> >
> > (assuming Zen has been mostly consistent in what he claims about same).
> >
> >
> >>You mis wrote your first IF...
>
> Your first IF is such that your variables have no relation to
> each other or the conclusion.

bzzzt. wrong. using your own selective figure-dancing:

0 = Is
a = This
b = That
bb = ThisThis
a0 = ThisIs
b0 = ThatIs

you seemed to have no problem with that stuff relating
to each other and the conclusion in your other post.

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/d632dadc50115d5d

so why now? flawsville? yeppers.

> If you want a conclusion, you needs must have an IF
> that has something to do with the THEN.

it does. it's Base Three Math.

and/or, your illegally selective "figure" dancing here:

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/d632dadc50115d5d

> > what makes you assume that?
> >
> > see also:
> >
> > Unicornian Mathematics, Logic, and Whatever
> > The Obligatory Summary of The Summary
> > 0zk3-05 http://tinyurl.com/887n7
> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/8ca5f3fade8aa7aa
> >
> >>HTH!
> >
> > it sure helps as an aid to teach Zen a thing or two (2) about logic.
> >
> > ya' know... this, and that, and whatnot, and so forth, and so on.
> >
> > say, do you think Zen will ever have enough "interest" to actually
> > come up with a single answer to the above logic question (which
> > inexorably ends up settling the cute little logic wager between
> > moi and Zenny)?
> >
> > place your bets.
>
> From

heh.

> From what I've seen, Zen and I are on the same page vis-a-vis
> logic and logic rules and IF 2=3 THEN !2!=3.

so, do you think Zenny will accept you as a third-party judge
for our silly little wager?

> From what I've seen, Zen and I are on the same page vis-a-vis
> logic and logic rules and IF 2=3 THEN !2!=3.

BTW: what is !2! supposed to mean?

NOT 2 NOT? therefore 2?

look, make up your minds.

either numerics are what they are or they are not.

if they have special meaning and value, how can one possibly
assume that 2 = 3 and not have it be grounds for an invalid
argument? where does it say that?

it's not logically consistent.

in any case, Zen has used logical substitution for numerals in
the past. (without 0 even coming into it). until i stumped
him one day. then he started talking about some "logic of tens"
thinger goalpost when i confronted him with his Base Three Math
conundrums (which he snipped FOUR times out of FIVE tries!).

remember? i'm sure Zen sure does. LOL.

i wonder if Dr. Zen will ever get around to answering thAT
sublimely humorous thought-provoking Unicornian Logic post.
see also:

Re: Unicornian Mathematics + Unicornian Logic = Logical...
0zju-12 http://tinyurl.com/cokev
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/36b5851746db866b

where you'll find Zen is apparently manifesting as the
Bob Woodward of Mathematics and Logic (in not disclosing
his super duper secret source for the "third-party judge"
that he's been lying about -- while at the same time having
the gall to accuse moi of lying instead) -- as well as
avoiding some rather interesting Base Three Mathematical
conundrums (Zen's hopelessly illogical contradictions).

look back one post previous in that thread for all the
humorous details:

Zen, moi, Zen, moi:

>>> You said that if you were adjudged wrong by
>>> a judge we both agreed on, you would pay.
>>
>>yep.
>
> But that turned out to be a lie.

nope. you never agreed to a third-aparty judge, remember?

if so, please tell us who it was. duh.

[...]

================================================
=============== end Unsnip # 2 =================

================================================
=============== end Unsnip # 3 =================
================================================

================================================
=============== end Unsnip # 4 =================
================================================
================================================

Re: Unicornian Mathematics + Unicornian Logic = Logical...
0zju-11 http://tinyurl.com/9fc3u
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/05e16af02b96d2d1

-$Zero... Cha ching!...

"...and that, my liege,
is how we know the Earth
to be banana-shaped."
-- Bedevere
[actor: Terry Jones; from the movie:
"Monty Python and the Holy Grail" (1974)]

-------------- Introducing Unicornian Mathematics/Logic: --------------

(which explains how: 2 + 2 = 3 + 3 is logically possible)

to wit:

Duh... and "3 != 2" Triple Double Duh...

"i'll present Q8 while you angrily shake the bars on
your monkey cage seeking unearned bananas after trying
to figure out the answer to Q7 (and then witholding
your alleged method for incorrectly "solving" it --
Booby Wayward would be proud)."
-- $Zero...
Re Unicornian Mathematics, Logic, and Whatever
0zk3-11 http://tinyurl.com/a858m
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/db96d58bbea5b5d5

------------------------------- 0zk3-41 -------------------------------

Towse

unread,

Dec 10, 2005, 4:37:47 PM12/10/05

Zero wrote:

One uses numerals INCLUDING ZERO and the other doesn't.

Zero, if you're going to adopt a nick, you need to research into what
that nick means.

> that's exactly my point in saying that 2 != 3, and never can.

Of course it can't. That's not the point of logic though.

IF 2=3, and continue on from there, as Zen has so patiently been telling
you.

IF 2=3, 2!=3 is FALSE.

>>>>>THEN That + This = ThisIs is:
>
>
>
>>Unable to determine.

You haven't defined That and ThisIs in relation to each other. That
could very easily equal ThisIs. I don't know. You haven't stated in your
IF sequence.

> um, not quite. your other post argued just the opposite.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/d632dadc50115d5d

No. It doesn't. Read it closely. Note the use of 0 and my mention of
base mathematics and zero.

>>Surely, you know the simple rules of logic.
>
> yes. logic must be logical. and consistent.
>
> otherwise, it's flawed logic. EOFS.

True. But your arguments are not logical.

>>>certainly not whether classical logic is flawed.
>>>
>>>this humorous little logic question settles that matter.
>>>
>>>(assuming Zen has been mostly consistent in what he claims about same).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>You mis wrote your first IF...
>>
>>Your first IF is such that your variables have no relation to
>>each other or the conclusion.
>
>
> bzzzt. wrong. using your own selective figure-dancing:
>
> 0 = Is
> a = This
> b = That
> bb = ThisThis
> a0 = ThisIs
> b0 = ThatIs
>
> you seemed to have no problem with that stuff relating
> to each other and the conclusion in your other post.

The use of 0 as a place holder is what is important, Zero, not just your
Thisses and Thattes.

>
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/d632dadc50115d5d
>
> so why now? flawsville? yeppers.
>
>
>
>>If you want a conclusion, you needs must have an IF
>>that has something to do with the THEN.
>
>
> it does. it's Base Three Math.

Anything that uses zero as a place holder. Base Three Maths have nothing
whatsoever to do with the logic behind the solution or lack thereof.

> and/or, your illegally selective "figure" dancing here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/d632dadc50115d5d

Study it, Zero. It's all there, zeroes and all.

>>>what makes you assume that?
>>>
>>>see also:
>>>
>>> Unicornian Mathematics, Logic, and Whatever
>>> The Obligatory Summary of The Summary
>>> 0zk3-05 http://tinyurl.com/887n7
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/8ca5f3fade8aa7aa
>>>
>>>
>>>>HTH!
>>>
>>>it sure helps as an aid to teach Zen a thing or two (2) about logic.
>>>
>>>ya' know... this, and that, and whatnot, and so forth, and so on.
>>>
>>>say, do you think Zen will ever have enough "interest" to actually
>>>come up with a single answer to the above logic question (which
>>>inexorably ends up settling the cute little logic wager between
>>>moi and Zenny)?
>>>
>>>place your bets.
>>
>> From
>
>
> heh.
>
>
>> From what I've seen, Zen and I are on the same page vis-a-vis
>>logic and logic rules and IF 2=3 THEN !2!=3.
>
>
> so, do you think Zenny will accept you as a third-party judge
> for our silly little wager?

There's no wager, Zero. You're misinformed and dense. Arguing with you,
when you don't understand simple logic and can't wrap your head around
the zeroes is useless.

Dr Zen

unread,

Dec 10, 2005, 7:42:15 PM12/10/05

Eek! A mouse... erm, sorry, no, it's "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com>
doing the squeaking, and it goes like this:

>Dr Zen wrote:

>
>> "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > Dr Zen wrote:
>
>> >> >> >> IF 3 = 2
>> >> >> >> AND 3 > 2
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >which is what you did when you said:
>> >> >> >11 + 2 = 20 AND 11 + 3 = 22
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Perhaps you'd like to show how?
>> >> >
>> >> >sure. BTW: i perfectly agree that 3 = 2 is absurd because 3 > 2
>> >>
>> >> Yes, that's right.
>> >
>> >but unfortunately for you, you keep insisting that:
>> >
>> > (3 = 2) = (3 + 3 = 2 + 2)
>>
>> Of course it doesn't.
>
>well, you're finally making a slight bit of progress. good.
>

I've never said it did.

>
>> >which it most definitely does NOT.
>>
>> No, it clearly doesn't.
>
>very good. see how easy that was to admit?

Yawn. Three more lines.

>
>
>> >duh... and "3 != 2" triple double duh.
>>
>> Unless I assume 3 = 2, then it does.
>
>but then your premise is invalid. EOFS.

What premise?

>
>and keep in mind (assuming your mind is strong enough to handle it):

That's your lot. Thanks for playing. Rest hosed unread.

Zero

unread,

Dec 10, 2005, 8:58:19 PM12/10/05

Towse wrote:

so now zero is the only relevant numeral? c'mon now.

and if you can validly say 2=3, what differnce does it make
what the other numerals are? no difference, right?

> Zero, if you're going to adopt a nick, you need to research
> into what that nick means.

that's pretty arrogant thinkins'. not very zen-like, aye?

> >yes. one uses numerals and one doesn't. so?
> >

> >that's exactly my point in saying that 2 != 3, and never can.
>
> Of course it can't. That's not the point of logic though.

if one "logically" assumes a mathematical scenario that
can NEVER BE, such "creates" an invalid premise whose
conclusions can be anything, no?

like when Zen (or you) offer 2=3 as an asumption, logically
speaking, it automatically invalidates the premise, no?

the same holds true for the following (which Zen offered recently):

IF 1 + 0 = 1
AND 1 + 1 = 2
AND 10 + 1 = 11
AND 11 + 2 = 20

AND 11 + 3 = 22

that 11 + 3 = 22 assumption creates an instantaneous
logical contradiction, thus an INVALID PREMISE in context
with the other assumptions, no? yes. inexorably.

otherwise, prove otherwise. you can't. Zen sure didn't.

he said:

THEN: 3 - 2 = 2 was TRUE.

claiming it was NOT because of any logical contradiction in
the premises.

so how does Zen justify that the assumptions of "2+2=3+3 AND 3>2"
is contradictional, and therefore an invalid premise, and therefore
making any conclusion TRUE?

(regardless that he's wrong in doing so -- what's his so-called
"logic"?)

same as mine. only i'm right in its application, and he's wrong.

i can show _my_ math and logic. he can't show his. cha' ching!

> IF 2=3, and continue on from there, as Zen has so patiently
> been telling you.

patiently, my ass. he's snipping more unread gems than Goalpost.

anyway, you cannot continue on from 2=3, because such an
assumption (while valid to "write" as an "assumption")
automatically invalidates the premise and makes absolutely
ANY conclusion possible. because no other logical conclusion
can be made when p=!p.

> IF 2=3, 2!=3 is FALSE.

nope. it's TRUE. because the premise "IF 2=3" is invalid.

2=3 is a logical contradiction of the most obvious kind.

you cannot have p and NOT p. the inexorableness of numerics
assures us that assuming: 2=3 is the same as assuming: p=!p

> 2 != 3, and never can.

Of course it can't

> > because of the inexorable axiom of identity of numerics.
> > Zen disagrees. and apparently, so do you. you both seem
> > to think that any squiggle can mean anything in logic.
> > (the only thing you seem to respect is the +, -, =, >, <, etc.)
> > hence the contradiction in classical logic. hence i win the bet.
> > because classical logic is culturally crippled.
> >
> > it's not pure logic.

also because one cannot be certain what the question is in Q7.

there's no way to tell. therefore: c] Unable to Determine.

therefore, classical logic is culturally crippled and flawed.

cha' ching!

can your flawed classical logic be fixed? perhaps. but the
fact that it can be fixed logically leads one to the conclusion
that it is flawed. that's pure logic.

and if it's flawed now, how do we know it won't be flawed
after we "fix" it? well, we won't. but we can assume so
pretty confidently, since it has been flawed ever since it
was originally observed/contemplated.

along the way, it gets fixed. and then a new flaw is found.

and that flaw gets fixed. etc. etc.

so the odds are in our favor to logically conclude that it
will always be flawed.

i can certainly live with that, can't you? or Zen? why not?

> >>>>> IF This + Is = This
> >>>>>
> >>>>> AND This + This = That
> >>>>> AND ThisIs + This = ThisThis
> >>>>> AND ThisThis + That = ThatIs
> >>>>>
> >>>>>THEN That + This = ThisIs is:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> a] True
> >>>>> b] False
> >>>>> c] Unable to Determine
> >>>>> d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
> >>>
> >>>>IF A + B = A
> >>>>AND A + A = C
> >>>>AND D + A = E
> >>>>AND E + C = F
> >>>>
> >>>>THEN C + A = D is . ... [c] unable to determine
> >>>
> >>>perhaps.
> >>>
> >>>but why?
> >>>
> >>>can you explain it? can you put it into words?
> >>>
> >>>(no pun intended, much)
> >>>
> >>>IOW: what exactly is "Unable to Determine"?
> >>
> >>You have not defined your variables in relation to each other.
> >
> > yes, i have.
> >
> > IF This + Is = This
> >
> > that means "Is" = 0.

right? perhaps you can attempt to explain otherwise.

Zen probably has some spare monkeywrenches lying around.

> >>>>>THEN That + This = ThisIs is:
> >
> >>Unable to determine.
>
> You haven't defined That and ThisIs in relation to each other.

i did it the same way you did, with the dancing "figures":

0 = Is
x = This
y = That
xx = ThisThis
x0 = ThisIs
y0 = ThatIs

go back and check your contradictional post:

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/d632dadc50115d5d

> That could very easily equal ThisIs. I don't know.

you claimed to know That from ThisIs in your other post:

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/d632dadc50115d5d

IF This + Is = This
AND This + This = That
AND ThisIs + This = ThisThis
AND ThisThis + That = ThatIs

THEN That + This = ThisIs is:

0 = Is
x = This
y = That
xx = ThisThis
x0 = ThisIs
y0 = ThatIs

IF x + 0 = x
AND x + x = y
AND x0 + x = xx
AND xx + y = y0

THEN y + x = x0 is:

since Zen says it's a logic of "tens" thinger,
(though that's quite the leap to make out of nowhere)
so, without using Base Three Math, somehow we must be
able to logically figure out that:

y0 - x0 - x0 = 0

the problem is, how do we get there? (to a place we
somehow magically know we're supposed to get to in
the first place). that interesting "leap" aside...

well, since we know that:

x + 0 = x
x + x = y
x0 + x = xx

we can probably safely conclude that:

y > x
y0 > x0

and since we know that:

xx + y = y0

we know that:

y0 = y + xx

y0 = x + x + xx
y0 = x + x + x + x0

y0 - x0 = x + x + x

ooo, we're getting closer... we just gotta
keep thinking positively: "y0 - x0 - x0 = 0"

but back to the mess:

y0 - x0 = x + x + x

and we already know that:

y = x + x

so...

y0 - x0 = x + y

ooo, we are just so darn close.

and we know that:

y0 = xx + y

so we plug that "xx + y" into the "y0" below:

y0 - x0 = x + y

and we get:

xx + y - x0 = x + y

and going back to our known assumptions:

x + x = y
x0 + x = xx

we replace the "xx" with the "x0 + x" and get:

x0 + x + y - x0 = x + y

oh boy, that's looking very nice, huh?

if we could only get rid of one of those pesky x0's
and one each of the x and y, we'd be in business, no?

maybe we ought to bring back something we built up earlier.

y0 - x0 = x + x + x

and then lay our other thinger close by:

x0 + x + y - x0 = x + y

hmmm...

x0 + x + x + x - x0 = x + y

x0 - x0 + x + x + x = x + y

x + x + x = x + y

nope. we already knew THAT.

let's try again, bringing back the two gems we know:

gem1
y0 - x0 = x + x + x

gem2
x0 - x0 + x + x + x = x + y

oh man, it's looking mighty close now!

do we have "x + x + x" equal to any single thing anywhere?

nope, but we do have:

x + x + x = x + y

so let's plug that into our two gems:

gem1
y0 - x0 = x + x + x
y0 - x0 = x + y

gem2
x0 - x0 + x + x + x = x + y
x0 - x0 + x + y = x + y

hmmm... now, our two gems are just WAY too cozy, aren't they?

y0 - x0 = x + y

x0 - x0 + x + y = x + y

wait... eureka!

um... no.

wait, maybe...???

y0 - x0 = x0 - x0 + x + y

nope. gets us nowhere.

unless... let's take our new mess:

y0 - x0 = x0 - x0 + x + y

and plug in AGAIN from:

y0 - x0 = x + y

making:

y0 - x0 = x0 - x0 + y0 - x0

surely we're getting closer to our logical mess
equaling zero now, right?

y0 - x0 = x0 - x0 + y0 - x0
y0 - x0 = y0 - x0
y0 = y0

fuck. just another y0 y0.

let's see...

i probably missed something somewhere, right?

FFS, all i need is a simple: x + y = x0

so what do we have here:

x < y
x < x + x
x0 < y0

x0 + x + y = y0
x + y = y0 - x0
x + y = xx + y - x0

x = xx - x0
xx - x0 - x = 0
x0 + x + y - y0 = 0
x + y - y0 = -x0
x + y = y0 - x0
x + x + x = y0 - x0
x + x + x + x0 = y0
x + x + xx = y0
x + y + x0 = y0
x0 = y0 - (x + y)
x0 + x + y = y0
xx + y = y0

fuck. i need to clear my head.

maybe i'll work more on this later.

> >>>>>THEN That + This = ThisIs is:
> >
> >>Unable to determine.
>
> You haven't defined That and ThisIs in relation to each other.
> That could very easily equal ThisIs. I don't know.
> You haven't stated in your IF sequence.

Zen said it was stated so in Q1:

IF 0 + 1 = 1

AND 1 + 1 = 2
AND 10 + 1 = 11
AND 11 + 2 = 20

THEN 1 + 2 = 10 is:

a] True

because of some mystical logic of "tens" thinger, and NOT
because of Base Three Mathematics. was he lying? or bluffing?

let me guess, we need to know more than just the numeral 0?

hmmm.... very interesting, aye?

or don't we? you tell moi. i'm all ears, as usual.

this so-called flawless classical logic fascinates me.

"who are YOU who are so _wise_ in the ways of science?"
-- King Arthur
[from a Monty Python masterpiece]

> >>>>>THEN That + This = ThisIs is:
> >
> >>Unable to determine.
> >

> > um, not quite. your other post argued just the opposite.
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/d632dadc50115d5d
>
> No. It doesn't. Read it closely. Note the use of 0 and my mention
> of base mathematics and zero.

uh huh. base mathematics and zero you say. interesting.

cha' ching!

> >>Surely, you know the simple rules of logic.
> >
> > yes. logic must be logical. and consistent.
> >
> > otherwise, it's flawed logic. EOFS.
>
> True. But your arguments are not logical.

they aren't? yikes.

base mathematics and zero you say. interesting.

> >>>certainly not whether classical logic is flawed.
> >>>
> >>>this humorous little logic question settles that matter.
> >>>
> >>>(assuming Zen has been mostly consistent in what he claims
> >>>about same).
> >>>
> >>>>You mis wrote your first IF...
> >>
> >>Your first IF is such that your variables have no relation to
> >>each other or the conclusion.
> >
> > bzzzt. wrong. using your own selective figure-dancing:
> >
> > 0 = Is
> > a = This
> > b = That

> > aa = ThisThis

> > a0 = ThisIs
> > b0 = ThatIs
> >
> > you seemed to have no problem with that stuff relating
> > to each other and the conclusion in your other post.
>
> The use of 0 as a place holder is what is important, Zero,
> not just your Thisses and Thattes.

well, the placeholder 0 is there for you. so get to it.

perform your magical zero thinger. don't use Base Three though, k?

just pure logic. oh, and Base mathematics.

> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/d632dadc50115d5d
> >
> > so why now? flawsville? yeppers.
> >
> >>If you want a conclusion, you needs must have an IF
> >>that has something to do with the THEN.
> >
> >
> > it does. it's Base Three Math.
>
> Anything that uses zero as a place holder. Base Three Maths have
> nothing whatsoever to do with the logic behind the solution or
> lack thereof.

did you miss the zero placeholder somehow?

0 = Is
x = This
y = That
xx = ThisThis
x0 = ThisIs
y0 = ThatIs

go ahead. it's magic time!

> > and/or, your illegally selective "figure" dancing here:
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/d632dadc50115d5d
>
> Study it, Zero. It's all there, zeroes and all.

0 = Is
x = This
y = That
xx = ThisThis
x0 = ThisIs
y0 = ThatIs

> >>>what makes you assume that?
> >>>
> >>>see also:
> >>>
> >>> Unicornian Mathematics, Logic, and Whatever
> >>> The Obligatory Summary of The Summary
> >>> 0zk3-05 http://tinyurl.com/887n7
> >>> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/8ca5f3fade8aa7aa
> >>>
> >>>>HTH!
> >>>
> >>>it sure helps as an aid to teach Zen a thing or two (2) about
> >>>logic. ya' know... this, and that, and whatnot, and so forth,
> >>>and so on.
> >>>
> >>>say, do you think Zen will ever have enough "interest" to
> >>>actually come up with a single answer to the above logic
> >>>question (which inexorably ends up settling the cute little
> >>>logic wager between moi and Zenny)?
> >>>
> >>>place your bets.
> >

> >> From what I've seen, Zen and I are on the same page vis-a-vis
> >>logic and logic rules and IF 2=3 THEN !2!=3.
> >
> > so, do you think Zenny will accept you as a third-party judge
> > for our silly little wager?
>
> There's no wager, Zero.

Gawd. not ANOTHER denial?! this time about the wager itself?

or are you the super duper secret independent third-party judge
that Zenny Booby Wayward claims that he and i agreed to, to settle
our "non-wager"?

or maybe you just weren't paying attention back then?

some of it was in Zen's blog. and my blog.

and it all got wiped away when some blog comment thinger went nuts.

but i have it archived.

> You're misinformed and dense.

logic is inexorable, Sal. it's not about being "informed",
it's about logic. it's inexorable, remember?

did i mention that it's inexorable? ummmmm... yep. hence
how i discovered that 2 + 2 = 3 + 3 could be logically possible.

and i'm certainly not dense.

(except that i'm densely filled with logic -- and smart-assed humor).

> Arguing with you, when you don't understand simple logic

LOL. that's rich.

> Arguing with you, when you don't understand simple logic
> and can't wrap your head around the zeroes is useless.

oh.

so says the person who can't use her magical zeroes and
logic to solve a simple Base Three Math logic problem.

-$Zero... Cha ching!...

to wit:

------------------------------- 0zk3-42 -------------------------------

Dr Zen

unread,

Dec 11, 2005, 12:41:59 AM12/11/05

Eek! A mouse... erm, sorry, no, it's "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com>
doing the squeaking, and it goes like this:

>Towse wrote:

No. No more than saying IF Paris is the capital of China does.

Towse

unread,

Dec 11, 2005, 1:09:55 AM12/11/05

Dr Zen wrote:
> Zero sed:

>>like when Zen (or you) offer 2=3 as an asumption, logically
>>speaking, it automatically invalidates the premise, no?

> No. No more than saying IF Paris is the capital of China does.

What you don't seem to be grokking, zero, is what Zen was talking about
with that brainy guy from misc.talkabout.current.events newsgroup or
whatever it is and has been talking with you for now on an age.

Allz Zen's been saying is IF 2=3, THEN 2!3 is FALSE. This logic sequence
is valid.

The THEN phrase has nothing to do with the truth or not truth of the
phrase in isolation. What Zen's been saying is that a value cannot both
be and not be equal to another value.

CANNOT.

A true, valid, logically correct argument can be made based on a false
premise (e.g. 2=3 or Paris is a suburb of St. Louis), but the result
itself is not =in =real =life true, unless the IF (the premise) is true.

IF 2=3 THEN 2+2 = 3+3. TRUE

BUT 2!=3 in real life
IF 2!=3 THEN 2+2 = 3+3 FALSE

I don't know how much more simply I can write the arguments to make you
take the time to try to understand the basic foundations of logic, Zero.

Zero

unread,

Dec 11, 2005, 1:53:27 AM12/11/05

Dr Zen wrote:

besides which, something that i forgot to mention at that
particular juncture was that you were absolutely wrong
about the This/That question NOT having zero in it.

it clearly did.

well, assuming one is being logical, that is.

IF This + Is = This

anyway, maybe you and Zenny can tell us:

what makes numerals so "special"?

is it merely the shape of their squiggles?

cha' ching!

IOW: what is "inexorably known" about numerals?

cha' ching!

and how do numerals differ in comparison with other
um... "non-numerals", i guess we can call them, aye?

Gawd.

this classical logic stuff gets funnier with every peek.

> >and if you can validly say 2=3, what differnce does it
> >make what the other numerals are? no difference, right?

heck, you can even claim 0 = 1, right? perfectly logical.

though obviously, one can denumeralize numerals, one can
decide to use them as dummy symbols, but then... one can
do that with +, -, >, <, *, /, =, as well, right?

but where does the madness end?

and how does one know when the madness has even begun?

for instance:

IF A + 1 = 2
AND B + A = 4
THEN B > A is:

who the fuck knows. because numerals are meaningless.

or they're not. which is it? get it?

oh wait, the numerals have their normal numeralness up
until some magical moment, right?

how perfectly logical is that? not very.

it is, however, extremely culturally crippled logic.

no doubt.

cha' ching!

> >> Zero, if you're going to adopt a nick, you need to
> >> research into what that nick means.
> >
> >that's pretty arrogant thinkins'. not very zen-like, aye?
> >
> >> >yes. one uses numerals and one doesn't. so?
> >> >
> >> >that's exactly my point in saying that 2 != 3,
> >> >and never can.
> >>
> >> Of course it can't. That's not the point of logic though.
> >
> >if one "logically" assumes a mathematical scenario that
> >can NEVER BE, such "creates" an invalid premise whose
> >conclusions can be anything, no?
> >
> >like when Zen (or you) offer 2=3 as an asumption, logically
> >speaking, it automatically invalidates the premise, no?
>
> No. No more than saying IF Paris is the capital of China does.

Gawd. here comes out-of-context cherry-picking boy.

running away from Q7 with all of his monkey might.

you've got a serious case of goalpost snipperoonie going on,
you realize that, don't you? whoa.

look, illogic-boy... answer Q7 or go see a shrink.

then maybe you can try to explain, unemotionally, just
how you came to the oddly selective conclusion that:

IF 3 + 3 = 5
AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
AND 3 > 2

THEN 2 + 2 = 4 is:

a] True

... due to some selectively "invalid" premise, yet a
logic question which has an assumption stating "3=2"
can somehow NOT contain an invalid premise.

try mapping those two (2) distinctions out, genius.

side by side. giving your reasoning for both.

good luck to you, illogic-boy.

i guess it's simply a case of "your own shit don't stink,"
huh monkey-jockey-boy?

-$Zero... Cha ching!...

to wit:

------------------------------- 0zk3-44 -------------------------------

Zero

unread,

Dec 11, 2005, 4:43:45 AM12/11/05

Towse wrote:

> Dr Zen wrote:
> > Zero sed:
>
> >>like when Zen (or you) offer 2=3 as an asumption, logically
> >>speaking, it automatically invalidates the premise, no?
>
> > No. No more than saying IF Paris is the capital of China does.
>
> What you don't seem to be grokking, zero, is what Zen was talking
> about with that brainy guy from misc.talkabout.current.events
> newsgroup or whatever it is and has been talking with you for
> now on an age.

what you don't seem to be grokking, Sally, is that i grok EXACTLY
what Zen is trying to peddle. duh. it's not rocket science.

like, whooooooosh.

you seriously think i'm that thick? whoa.

> Allz Zen's been saying is IF 2=3, THEN 2!3 is FALSE. This logic
> sequence is valid.

nope. it isn't. it's adolescently logical, at best.

look, i know perfectly well that numerals are symbols as well as
numerals.

duh. and as such, they can be treated as empty dummies.

just like A, B, C, etc. and A can even have fixed logical
relationships to B & C.

FFS, anyone who has ever done any kind of coded message knows that
much.

it's a child's game.

it's perfectly logical to substitute empty dummies for ANY other
symbol.

and one can do so perfectly consistently. it's "logical." BFD.

i know _precisely_ what you and Zen are saying.

the thing is, you idjits are NOT grokking what _i'm_ saying.

on many levels.

for one, the Unicornian relationship is REAL. it's logical.

IF 2 + 2 = 3 + 3, even in the real world, THEN 3 + 3 = 5.

TRUE. EOFS. not because the premise is not valid.

not merely "theoretically". it's fucking TRUE.

it's _true_ True.

it's based on real existing stuff. the nature of Odd and Even numbers.

EOFS.

in other news, classical logic is highly culturally crippled.

EOFS.

the Q7 This/That logic question (among many others) proves this.

inexorably.

do let me know when you get yourself a clue or two (2).

> The THEN phrase has nothing to do with the truth or not truth
> of the phrase in isolation.

here, let me walk you thru this a bit:

hold on to my hand, if you like, and answer this logic question:

----------------------------- Q4

IF 3 + 3 = 5
AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
AND 3 > 2

THEN 2 + 2 = 5 is:

a] True
b] False
c] Unable to Determine
d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y

-----------------------------

why is it True?

because any conclusion is True? nope. bzzzt.

it's True because of the nature of Odd and Even numbers.

get it?

it's True because um = 0.5

EOFS.

here, now try another:

----------------------------- Q (?)

IF 0 + 1 = 2
AND 1 + 2 = 3
AND 3 + 1 = 4

THEN 2 + 2 = 4 is:

a] True
b] False
c] Unable to Determine
d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y

-----------------------------

a] True

why? because any conclusion is True? nope.

> What Zen's been saying is that a value cannot both be and
> not be equal to another value.
>
> CANNOT.

i agree.

> A true, valid, logically correct argument can be made based
> on a false premise (e.g. 2=3

that one is bogus because of numerical inexorableness.

it's an example of one of many parallel worlds you're ignoring.

there's the numerical inexorableness world.

there's the numerical dummies world, etc.

it's one of the reasons why classical logic is flawed.

duh.

and because of these coexisting worlds that you're cluelessly
ignoring, the TRULY logical answer to MOST logic questions
is [c] Unable to Deterrmine.

"this classical logic of yours,
it's culturally crippled, captain."
-- Scotty

> A true, valid, logically correct argument can be made based
> on a false premise (e.g. 2=3 or Paris is a suburb of St. Louis),
> but the result itself is not =in =real =life true, unless the
> IF (the premise) is true.

duh.

> IF 2=3 THEN 2+2 = 3+3. TRUE

Yes. (but adolescently speaking).

the real answer is True because 2!=3 in the real
world of inexorable numerical axioms of identity.
(which is very important in actual logic)

> means GREATER THAN
= neans EQUALS
2 means the inexorable numeric value TWO
3 means the inexorable numeric value THREE

but with this:

> IF 2=3 THEN 2+2 = 3+3. TRUE

you're operating in the numerical dummies world.

therefore, the truly classical logical answer is:

[c] Unable to Determine

because there's no clear cut rules to decide otherwise.

> BUT 2!=3 in real life

agreed.

> IF 2!=3 THEN 2+2 = 3+3 FALSE

wrong. it's True. catching up yet?

it's True because um = 0.5

sorry that not many people realize it. it's not my problem.

nor my concern. i simply find it amusing.

> I don't know how much more simply I can write the arguments
> to make you take the time to try to understand the basic
> foundations of logic, Zero.

whoa. FOUITN.

-$Zero... Cha Ching!... That'llBe$27.75,Please...

"...and that, my liege,
is how we know the Earth
to be banana-shaped."
-- Bedevere
[actor: Terry Jones; from the movie:
"Monty Python and the Holy Grail" (1974)]

-------------- Introducing Unicornian Mathematics/Logic: --------------

(which explains how: 2 + 2 = 3 + 3 is logically possible)

to wit:

Duh... and "3 != 2" Triple Double Duh...

------------------------------- 0zk3-45 -------------------------------

Zero

unread,

Dec 11, 2005, 5:24:36 AM12/11/05

whoa. i hate when i make stupid errors.

> ----------------------------- Q (?)
>
> IF 0 + 1 = 2

nope. i stupidly skipped and transfixed a step.

> AND 1 + 2 = 3
> AND 3 + 1 = 4
>
> THEN 2 + 2 = 4 is:
>
> a] True
> b] False
> c] Unable to Determine
> d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
>
> -----------------------------

it should have been:

> ----------------------------- Q (?)
>
> IF 0 + 1 = 2

scratch that first IF

here's the real one:

IF 0 + 1 = 1

AND 1 + 1 = 2

> AND 1 + 2 = 3
> AND 3 + 1 = 4
>
> THEN 2 + 2 = 4 is:
>
> a] True
> b] False
> c] Unable to Determine
> d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
>

> a] True
>
> why? because any conclusion is True? nope.

it's True for many reasons. among them, guess what?

it's True because um = 0

FOUITN

that's the funniest part about the whole Unicornian Method.

when um = 0, you don't even notice it's there.

but when um = 0.5 THEN

3 + 3 = 5

2 + 2 = 3 + 3

2 + 2 = 5

3 + 4 = 7
1 + 1 = 0
11 + 4 = 15
4 + 4 = 8.5

etc.

sorry if it upsets you for some odd reason, but it's true.

and pretty hilarious, if you ask moi.

0zk3-46

Zero

unread,

Dec 11, 2005, 5:41:04 AM12/11/05

yikes. i better go back to bed. obligatory corrections:

Zero wrote:
> Zero wrote:
> > Towse wrote:

[...]

scratch that last one.
i wanted to demonstarte the um a bit
more clearer but rushed thru it stupidly.

if um = 0.5 THEN

4 + 4 = 9

4 + 4 + 1 = 9.5
3 + 3 + 2 = 7.5
3 + 3 + 1 = 5.5
2 + 2 + 1 = 5.5
1 + 1 + 1 = 0.5
1 + 2 + 3 = 5.5
4 + 4 + 4 = 13.5
7 + 6 + 5 = 17.5
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 10

etc.

i'm pretty sure all those are right.

check my math.

> etc.
>
> sorry if it upsets you for some odd reason, but it's true.
>
> and pretty hilarious, if you ask moi.

[...]

0zk3-47

Dr Zen

unread,

Dec 11, 2005, 9:10:40 AM12/11/05

Eek! A mouse... erm, sorry, no, it's "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com>
doing the squeaking, and it goes like this:

>Dr Zen wrote:

No.

> THEN 2 + 2 = 4 is:
>
> a] True
>

Any conclusion would be true.

Dr Zen

unread,

Dec 11, 2005, 9:12:10 AM12/11/05

Eek! A mouse... erm, sorry, no, it's "Zero" <Shakub...@aol.com>
doing the squeaking, and it goes like this:

>the thing is, you idjits are NOT grokking what _i'm_ saying.
>

"Boo hoo, I refuse to be wrong."

Am I close"?

Me

unread,

Dec 11, 2005, 10:51:04 AM12/11/05

Towse wrote:
. . . for now on an age.
>

How long is that?

Donna

Towse

unread,

Dec 11, 2005, 11:53:21 AM12/11/05

Me wrote:

> Towse wrote:

> How long is that?

About fifty-three years (or in your case forty-five?).

0 new messages