Re: Moving Mirror Proves Einstein Wrong

[YBM]

Androcles a �crit :
> "YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote in message
> news:4b3b8713$0$5253$426a...@news.free.fr...
>> Androcles a �crit :
>>> "YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:4b3b7ddf$0$24767$426a...@news.free.fr...
>>>> waldofj a �crit :
>>>>>>> p xor q => p or q, dumby? Explain us what this is not true.
>>>>>> Easy as 1,2,3, 4.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) (FALSE xor FALSE) = TRUE
>>>> Ahem...
>>> Bad cough you have there.
>> What is F xor F again, "Dr" Parker?
>> What is F => T again, "Dr" Parker?
>>
>>> Just one counterexample is all that is needed to blow your idiotic
>>> theory out of the water, shithead, and waldofj has given you one.
>> He didn't, neither did you, look again at the truth tables for
>> xor and implies. Do you understand what a truth table means
>> Mr Parker, wannabe "electrical engineer, professionnaly"?
>>
>> Looks like you spitted again a few times on Wendy Parker's memory
>> today, "Dr" John Parker.
>
> Oh dear, you've spelt "professionally" with two ns. Not
> too good at getting your facts right, are you, local village idiot?

Wendy Parker's father, evading as the asshole he've always been.

[YBM]

Androcles a �crit :
> "YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote in message

> news:4b3b8e2d$0$24610$426a...@news.free.fr...

>> Androcles a �crit :
>>> "YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:4b3b7ddf$0$24767$426a...@news.free.fr...
>>>

>>>> From: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Implies.html
>>>> A=>B has the following truth table (Carnap 1958, p. 10; Mendelson 1997,
>>>> p. 13).
>>>> A B A=>B
>>>> T T T
>>>> T F F
>>>> F T T
>>>> F F T
>>>
>>> For the record, "implies" is "if A then B"
>>> or
>>> if A = TRUE then B = TRUE.
>> This is meaningless, il looks like the BASIC if/then
>> statement which is here 1) irrelevant and 2) not
>> even correct since "=" would have different meaning behing
>> "IF" (equality) and "THEN" (variable set).
>>
>>> If it rains I'll take my umbrella.
>>> IF "it rains" = TRUE THEN "I'll take my umbrella" = TRUE.
>>>
>>> "It rains" (A) "I'll take my umbrella" (B) A=>B
>>> T T T
>>> T F F
>>> F T undefined.
>>> F F undefined.
>> So you pretend that Wolfram MathWorld (and Carnap et all) is wrong about
>> basic boolean logic ?
>>
>>> Taking my umbrella when it doesn't rain is valid.
>>> The contrapositive (NOT B => NOT A) is:
>>> IF I do not take my umbrella THEN it will not rain.
>>> I can neither cause rain nor not cause rain by carrying
>>> an umbrella as Carnap and Mendelson seem to imagine.
>> Unable to admit being wrong even when proven so, Parker? Wendy would
>> have been very sad to see his father to be such a asshole.
>>
>> Anyway, she probably knew that.
>
> There speaks the successful local village idiot, "professionnaly".