Re: Most irrational speculations of physics

[Serg io]

On 7/22/2017 7:19 AM, Kurt Larrabee wrote:
> Serg io wrote:
>
>> x(t) indicates x() is a function of t, under certain conditions. (it may
>> not be a function)
>
> No shit. Try to convince me it is not.
>

so you admit that everything I stated is true.

and realize you are only discussing nomenclature use.

[Serg io]

On 7/22/2017 10:20 AM, Kurt Larrabee wrote:
> Serg io wrote:
>

>>>>>> We are discussing if the expression " x(t) = t^2 " is an *equation*
>>>>>> or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> no, it's a function, as described by the Scientific Method.
>>>>> x is a function of t.
>>>>
>>>> So what! We are not discussing if its a function; we are discussing
>>>> the
>>>
>>> Amazing how all these half-engineers are failing seeing that function
>>> immediately. Functions characterize by a direction
>>> INPUT(..) -> FUNCTION BLOCK -> OUTPUT(s)
>>> That equal sign is not very clever. Read it OUT LOUD, in words,
>>> Stephane. You are not that stupid you appear. How about this one,
>>> x(t,s)=t^s. These half-engineers are crazy.
>>>
>> I see you do not know math very well.
>> *your definition* of function is incomplete, not precise, and wrong. you
>> use undefined symbols.
>
> Another cretinism spewed out. That's the whole idea in having symbols, no
> need to define them yet. In math one may primarily work in symbols or
> numerical, something even imbeciles should know. Talk to somebody else.
>

I see you have a new name, dweebie.

So far you get an F, for FAIL.
you fail to get anything right.