Re: CTS community mail
- From: Ryan Williams <ryan820509@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 23:32:51 +0200
What, it's starting already?
On 30 Dec 2014 23:28, "Manase Zote" <bmlzote@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Fuck you eskom!!!!!
> On 30 Dec 2014 17:00, "Ryan Williams" <ryan820509@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Just finished watching John Wick. The movie is kinda mediocre but the
>> action scenes are top notch.
>> On 30 Dec 2014 13:39, "Ilitirit Sama" <ilitirit@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Finally made SMB my bitch. They even have this helpful message at the
>>> end telling you "Congrats! You have finished everying in NSMB!"
>>>
>>> On to Bayonetta 2 now. Man, what a game. I can see myself playing this
>>> for a while.
>>>
>>>
>>> Stupid lol of the day:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3QcfZhYBzo&feature=youtu.be
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Ryan Williams <ryan820509@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> *LOL*
>>>>
>>>> That Jean though...
>>>>
>>>> And Professor X looks (and sounds) like Dr. Evil *lol*
>>>> On 29 Dec 2014 21:02, "lindsey kiviets" <lindseyak@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-iMVsi0IuY
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>> Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 15:59:16 +0200
>>>>> Subject: Re: CTS community mail
>>>>> From: ilitirit@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> To: cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want to get really technical (read: anal) you can say that
>>>>> you'd also have to prove that married and unmarried are mutually exclusive
>>>>> states.
>>>>>
>>>>> Consider polygamy: You can be married to 4 women, but then you divorce
>>>>> 1. To unmarry someone means to undo a marriage them. So technically in
>>>>> this case you are married and unmarried.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 3:30 PM, sameegh jardine <sameegh@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> lol, hadn't considered that possibility :P
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Ilitirit Sama <ilitirit@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Correct, except if you use Constructive Logic. In that case you would
>>>>> be required to prove that Alice, Bob and Charlie are indeed a married or
>>>>> unmarried person, and you would not be able to use the Law of the Excluded
>>>>> Middle or Double Negation.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionistic_logic
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is this important? Because Alice, Bob and Charlie may in fact be
>>>>> the name of animals (not people), which would either mean the answer is
>>>>> False or undecidable.
>>>>>
>>>>> But we are reasonable folk after all, so we can appeal to Occam's
>>>>> Razor to handle that.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 9:25 PM, sameegh jardine <sameegh@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, because irrespective of Alice's status the question being asked
>>>>> will be held true for either the first or second statement.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Ilitirit Sama <ilitirit@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> By the way, here's a riddle:
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob is looking at Alice. Alice is looking at Charlie. Bob is married.
>>>>> Charlie is not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is a married person looking at an unmarried person?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
Other related posts:
