Search results

An example of what I was talking about as far as the exponentiation thing is concerned Consider an operator that functions as such, let us call it R for reduce, as the operator is called in programming. R takes a function and a list. The function specifies how the values of the list will be...

There actually is no flaw there, as the result is actually the rieman-zeta function of the sum. It can be used to assign a value to the sum, but it's more like a gold nugget than anything as numberphile says Yeah he said the thing :P

ooo yay thing

I’m gonna be formalizing a bunch of my proofs using LaTeX and fun things [here](https://github.com/Strikingwolf/MathsAndLogic), so yay Lagic

Also, I would be writing a reply to @Heliomance and @keybounce's posts, but the problem here is that the forum is derping on long posts, alternatively, I will attempt to formalize the proof using Latex for my things. I have some other things that need to be formalized anyway (some of it logic...

impossible b/c infinite world

Logic is a superset of math, math is just logic with some axioms

This isn't math it's logic :P

python mk_genesis_block.py because ethereum

http://curlpipesh.tumblr.com/ Because curl | sh is evil

You don't need to manually check if the variable is true or false. A or (not A) is always true as if A is true, then the first branch of the or is satisfied, if it is not then the second branch is. This only assumes A is a true/false statement or value, which is given in the information A proof...

That is a counterexample, I literally said it was :P My argumentation however is correct, and thus it is an inherent logical contradiction, those are bad anyway, but y'know. Also, if I were to make my self-referential definition more precise in order to avoid contradiction I could say "A set's...

That's a contradiction to the argument, it does not show the proof/argument is false, those are separate things ;) AKA, counterexamples/contradictions mean nothing if the deduction points to a conclusion

I like how I'm saying this even though RJS and I may be on the same team

RWBY gifs in werewolf signup threads @RJS

I was just as you will be in this game

RWBY memes of course :P

No, given an infinite set of {true...} that isn't random, nor is it determined by the other, but one of them must be false

thatsthejoke.jpg

By that I mean the elements do not reference other elements in the set in any way shape or form, either in their proof of being true or in their statement AKA, {A, B: proved by A, C: proved by B, D: proved by C...} is an example of a self-referential set The self-referential thing is my own...