Re: CTS community mail
- From: Manase Zote <bmlzote@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 00:52:35 +0200
Leo in Xrd seems legit I hope he is viable.
On 30 Dec 2014 23:44, "Manase Zote" <bmlzote@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 3 hours of darkness...
> Uncle fuckers.
> On 30 Dec 2014 23:33, "Ryan Williams" <ryan820509@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> 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:
