RE: CTS community mail
- From: Wynand-Ben <paashaasggx@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2015 09:26:56 +0000
Cool
Im there.
GuiltyGearEksHard!
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2015 11:23:05 +0200
Subject: RE: CTS community mail
From: ryan820509@xxxxxxxxx
To: cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
This Sat at Jeeva's :)
On 1 Jan 2015 11:18, "Wynand-Ben" <paashaasggx@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sooo
When is the next session?
Back from my little holiday and stuff... starting again on monday :(
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 23:04:26 +0200
Subject: RE: CTS community mail
From: bmlzote@xxxxxxxxx
To: cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
I hope you got game because I want a ft5 against you at the session...
On 30 Dec 2014 18:29, "lindsey kiviets" <lindseyak@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
ya i dunno , it smells alot like taken.
i dont like revenge movies.
I watched the croods, good cartoon movie. The voice of the father sounded so
familiar , turns out it was nicholas cage, lol
I lost at jhb vs cpt 5v5 in bb, i need to hold dat L. cant really talk smack
now in xrd thread. I just need to silently poon all.
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 16:59:39 +0200
Subject: Re: CTS community mail
From: ryan820509@xxxxxxxxx
To: cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
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:
