Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.

[juan]

On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 00:45:55 -0000
xorcist at sigaint.org wrote:

> >> But, since you're familiar with reductio ad absurdum, perhaps you'd
> >> also like to read up on examples of ad hominems as well.
> >
> >
> >       As used as a colloquial (and snobbish) synonym for insult?
> > It's not the same thing as the 'informal fallacy' you know...
> 
> I just meant that you might like to add it to your repertoire.
> 
> 
> >       That is NOT an axiom. But hey, keep redefining words,
> >       equivocating and the like.
> 
> You really don't seem to get it. 


	I do, I do. Your are the poster child for equivocation.




> Essentially ANYTHING that is
> unprovable (therefore not disprovable) can be postulated as an axiom.


	...by you, yes =)

	So back to your mental vomit about iran.

	""But if an axiom that Iran is operating by is that sooner or
	later, given USA's historical performance in the region, they
	WILL get invaded regardless," 


	So "being attacked by the US nazis is an axiom" - But it's not
	provable nor disprobable. So how do they know it will happen? 

	Ah, they have xorcist's crystal balls!!! 



> 
> > So, combine (sum up or 'integrate') a bunch
> > of linear operations and you get a curve. Recursive corner cutting
> > is also a nice example of this. And what of it? The curve is STILL
> > ruled by the 'linear' 'logic' used to create it.
> 
> This is your example of linearizing complexity? You consider
> piece-wise curve construction and integration complex? My lord, we
> have work to do.


	The example is perfect. 



> 
> Sure - simple curves are differentiable, and expressed by
> approximations - and if taken to infinitely many terms, there is
> identity. So, fine - we have a Taylor series. Quite good. A Taylor
> series cannot be used to express a non-differentiable function,
> however.

	So what. What are you proving now? That you know some math and
	can troll for days? 


> For that, we have to level up. Taylor series gives us sine/cosine,

	Actually what I posted is not exactly a taylor series. In the
	code a stands for acceleration, v for velocity and p por
	position. Since you are such a genius you could have figured
	that out, but somehow you didn't...?


	

> and we must create series of sine/cosine terms in Fourier series to
> approximate periodic, non-differentiable functions. And again, with
> infinitely many such terms, we get identity.
> 
> All quite good - but none of this represents emergent behavior,
> feedback, 


	Actually my example does illustrate feedback. Since you
	mentioned a fed-back amplifier, I posted a mathematical
	representation of a similar system. But hey you are
	the Great Master of Mathematics, aren't you. 


> or any type of complexity. It's trivial to find functions
> or data sets, that cannot be expressed by Taylor, or Fourier,
> approximation.
> 
> A better example for you would have been one of Wolfram's cellular
> automata rules. 


	No sonny, my example is perfect. It goes from a linear system
	to a more complex, 'curved' result. It is good enough to
	illustrate my point. 




> 
> >> Not subject to proof, as you claimed. Let's just be clear about
> >> that. You claimed that axioms can be proven. They cannot.
> >
> >
> >       OK, let play your game. THey can't be proven. Are they still
> >       true?  How THE FUCK do you know they are true?
> 
> Well, that is a deep philosophical question, in fact. 

	Oh really. 

> There are
> different answers to it in different philosophical schools and ideas
> about epistemology.

	Is that so? 

> 
> MY answer is: Axioms are not true, and are not false. 


	Righ, right. You are really an amazing genius are you not? Or
	are you? Or is it truefalse? or falsetrue? 


> The property of
> true and false doesn't apply to them. 

	Is that true?? Or false? Wait, I...


> It is for this reason that they
> are able to PROVIDE that property of truth/falsity to other claims,

	Ah that really makes sense! They can provide something they
	don't have. 

	That is like you providing reasonable answers? Like you
	providing any non-shitty non-trolling  non-absurd ideas?
	Hmmm....


 
> >       So truth is a matter of choice? And Party 'Agreement' of
> > course!
> 
> Yes, but no. Perhaps.

	Right. Infinite, involuntary, self-parody. Absolute.


> 
> But you know what, I'm not going to worry about the fact that you
> repeatedly made incorrect statements about axioms before, because you
> do it for me again:

	Right. Wrong. What.
	


> 
> >       Yes, I STATED that AXIOMS CNA BE PROVEN. So far so good?
> 
> No, because they can't. And since you won't accept reference
> citations of this, and since you're thick and obviously not listening
> to me. I'll listen to YOU. Completely open mind. No agenda.
> 
> Prove some, then. Prove either the law of the excluded middle, or the
> law of non-contradiction. Your choice.


	Igonre it, like you actually do all the time, and all you get
	is nonsense, like the nonsense you post all the time. 

	But again, let's say the 'law of non contradiction' can't be
	proven. So? It stops being self-evidently true? =)



> 
> Prove both? I'll shut up, leave the list, whatever you like, diety.
> 
> It can't be done. You're a fool for thinking it can. 


	The fact that ignoring it leads to nonsense is good enough
	proof. But if you don't like that proof, so-fucking-what. The
	'law' remains valid.