Mathematical, Logical, And Not In The Least Circular Proofs

The place for general discussion about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and most things related to Him.

Moderator: All Things Mods

User avatar
StayThirstyMyAguila
Definitely not Eric
Posts: 1349
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 2:16 pm
Location: The depths of Archaide.

Mathematical, Logical, And Not In The Least Circular Proofs

Postby StayThirstyMyAguila » Fri Jan 20, 2017 8:53 pm

This is a topic I created for anyone with any kind of proof of the FSM that doesn't go into the "FSM Sightings" category.
I'm gonna post a proof, and hopefully it actually becomes a proof because I'm just making it up as I go and I promised myself I would post whatever I came up with. I promise, there will be useless branches of thought that I abandoned and didn't delete before posting this.
Here goes nothing . . .
First we need to define our variables:
For the FSM, we will use the Unicode symbol* '⍾', because it looks quite a bit like Him of the starchiest noodles, extending two appendages from His jiggly mass downward, probably to push us down in an attempt to keep us short . . . but I digress. The point is ⍾=the FSM.
'K' will be knowledge.
'M' will be money.
'B' (for brain) will be intelligence.
'P' will be power.
'a' will mean, "all of". So ax=all of x.
'e' will mean, "existence of". So ex=true means that the existence of x is true, or in other words, that x exists.
'¢' will mean, "attention capacity of". So '¢⍾' means, "attention capacity of the FSM".
'W' will be work.
'⌛' will be time.

Now our proof begins:
Fact I: We all know that knowledge is power. So K=P.
Fact II: Engineers know that power is work over time. So P=W/⌛.
Deduction I: With Fact I and Fact II, and by using substitution, we know that K=W/⌛. So knowledge is work over time.
Deduction II: The more knowledge you have, the less ⌛ you have and the more work you do. Another way of putting it is that the less work you do and the more ⌛ you have, the smarter you are.
Fact III: We know that time is money. So ⌛=M.
Deduction III: From Fact I, Fact II, and Fact III, and also by using substitution, K=W/M.
Deduction IV: Putting Deduction III in words, K=W/M means that the more work you do and the less money you have, the smarter you are. Or, the more money you have and the less work you do, the less smart you are.
Fact IV: We already know that the FSM is an UD, or unintelligent designer.
Deduction V: From Fact IV, we can deduce that the FSM's intelligence is low.
Fact V: Intelligence and knowledge are two very different things.
Deduction VI: B≠K.
Fact VI: The FSM is not all-knowing, and in fact is limited by His attention (besides, knowing all the embarrassing details of every human's life would make Him very uncomfortable around us mortals. Some things are best kept secret).
Deduction VII: His K is a factor of His attention span and ⌛.
Fact VII: We know the FSM is affected by ⌛, or at least that He chooses to be affected by ⌛, because of His past use of relativity. Also, He would likely find it very boring just sitting around in a time stop, in the case the He did choose to be affected by ⌛.
Fact VIII: Technology requires power to function.
Fact IX: Technology exists.
Fact X: The FSM took a bit under five days to create the universe as we know it.
Deduction VIII: Based on Fact VII and Fact X, we can safely deduce that His power has some sort of limit that is related to ⌛ (perhaps using His almighty majesty to work wonders gives Him severe migraine when He uses it all at once, we cannot know).
Deduction IX: From Deduction VIII, we can safely deduce that ⍾≠aP.
Deduction X: From Fact I, Deduction IX, and by using substitution, we can calculate that ⍾≠aK. This supports and in fact mathematically and logically proves Fact VI.
Deduction XI: By switching over to Boolean states of existence, and by using Fact VIII and Fact IX, we can make a firm statement that eP=true.
Deduction XII: By again using Boolean states of existence, let us assume that the FSM exists (we know this, but others refuse to or cannot see the truth). Therefore, e⍾=true.
Fact XI: We know that the FSM has power, but yet is not all-powerful.
Deduction XIII: From Deduction XI, Deduction XII, and Fact XI, we can say that as long as e⍾=true and eP=true, and because ⍾<aP, then ⍾=P (because He has power).
Fact XII: Booleans are not like variables when it comes to substitution.
Deduction XIV: Based on Fact XII, we cannot conclude that, by using substitution and Deduction XIII, that e⍾=eP.
Deduction XV: Based on Fact XII, we can conclude that I'm going to need a workaround to prove the conclusion I've already reached (Pastafarian scientific method is the best scientific method, after all).
Deduction XVI: From Deduction XIII, if ⍾=P because He has power, then multiplying both sides by 'e' should give us a true statement. This statement is e⍾=eP.
Fact XIII: I am currently typing this proof on an electrically-powered piece of equipment that is an instance of modern, electrically-powered technology.
Deduction XVII: Deduction XVI implies that there is a relationship between the existence of P and the existence of ⍾.
Deduction XVIII: From Deduction XVII, Fact VIII, Fact IX, and logical reasoning, we can draw the conclusion that modern, electrically powered technology could not exist without power, and that if power does not exist, then the FSM does not exist.
Deduction XIX From Fact VIII, Fact IX, and Fact XIII, we can correctly hypothesize that both technology and, in turn and by necessity, power exists.
Fact XIX: Because e⍾=eP, and power was proven to exist in Deduction XIX, the FSM must also exist (as if we didn't already know that).

That's all for now.
This indecipherable list of proofs will later be unscrambled and posted as separate strings of thought. But not now, not yet . . . patience, and stay thirsty my friends . . . :drinking: :drinking: :drinking:


*Random thought I had: is there a Unicode symbol that stands for Unicode? There should be.

User avatar
StayThirstyMyAguila
Definitely not Eric
Posts: 1349
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 2:16 pm
Location: The depths of Archaide.

Re: Mathematical, Logical, And Not In The Least Circular Proofs

Postby StayThirstyMyAguila » Wed Jan 25, 2017 11:57 am

Proof That The Flying Spaghetti Monster Exists

For the purposes of convenience, our variables are defined below:
  • To represent the FSM, we will use the Unicode symbol '⍾', because it looks quite a bit like Him of The Sauciest And Meatiest Balls, extending two appendages from His jiggly mass downward, probably to push us down in an attempt to keep us short . . . but I digress. The point is ⍾=the FSM.
  • 'P' will represent power. So P=power.
  • 'e' will mean, "existence of". So ex="the existence of x".
  • 't' will represent modern technology, specifically electrically powered technology. So t=electrically powered technology.
  • 'a' will mean, "all of". So ax="all of x".
  • 'K' will represent knowledge. So K=knowledge.

Now the proof begins:
Fact I: Knowing the secrets and personal details of the lives of every living being would make you extremely uncomfortable around everyone.
Fact II: The FSM doesn't like being uncomfortable.
Deduction I: The FSM is not, or chooses not to be, all-knowing. In variables, we can say that ⍾≠aK.
Fact III: I am typing this proof on a piece of modern technology, specifically a piece of modern technology that is powered electrically.
Deduction II: Technology, specifically electrically powered and modern technology, exists. So et=true (shoutout to ET here, congratz man, you exist!).
Fact IV: In order for other people to read this, i must be typing it on a functioning piece of modern, electrically powered technology.
Deduction III: I am typing this proof on a functioning, modern, electrically powered piece of technology.
Fact V: Electrically powered technology requires power to function.
Desperate Hope I: I exist.
Desperate Hope II: I am a someone.
Deduction IV: Someone is reading this.
Deduction V: Technology exists, because I am reading this.
Fact VI: If no one is reading this, then the proof is irrelevant and/or incorrect.
Deduction VI: This proof is relevant and/or correct.
Fact VII: Without power, electrically powered technology cannot function.
Deduction VII: Based on Deduction III and Fact VII, the existence of electrically powered, modern technology is tied to the existence of power. In variables, eP=et.
Fact VIII: Because t exists, P must also exist.
Deduction VIII: eP=true.
Fact IX: We know that knowledge is power. In variables, this means that K=P.
Deduction IX: We can use Fact IX and substitution to substitute P in for K in Deduction I. Therefore, ⍾≠aP.
Fact X: The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe.
Deduction X: The Flying Spaghetti Monster has power. In variables, while ⍾≠aP, specifically because the variable 'a' is involved. Therefore, the 'a' must go for the '≠' to become '='. So we have ⍾=P.
Fact XI: Multiplying both sides of an equation by a variable should still give you a true equation.
Deduction XI: Multiplying both sides of the second equation from Deduction X by 'e' will give us a true equation. Therefore, e⍾=eP.
Deduction XII: The equation from Deduction XI implies that the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is tied to the existence of power. In other words, if the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, then power must also exist. And if the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist, then power must also be nonexistent.
Deduction XIII: Because the operator of the equation in Deduction XII is '=', it works both ways, and the inverse of the equation, and its inherent relationship claim(s), must also be true.
Deduction XIV: Because the inverse of the relationship claims presented in Deduction XII must also be true, that means that the if power exists, then the Flying Spaghetti Monster must also exist. It also means that if power does not exist, then the Flying Spaghetti Monster must also be nonexistent.
Deduction XV: We know from Deduction VIII that power exists, and because Deduction XIV states that if power exists, then the Flying Spaghetti Monster must exist, the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. In variables, we can say that e⍾=true.
Fact XII: This proof was pretty awesome.
Deduction XVI: This proof was so awesome, it probably made you thirsty.
Deduction XVII: I must be extremely awesome to have created such an awesome proof.
Deduction XVIII: This proof's awesomeness and my awesomeness combined to make you so thirsty that you don't even realize you're thirsty, nor the fact that you want, nay, NEED to stay thirsty for more.
Deduction XIX: I need to remind you that you are thirsty and need to stay thirsty for more by saying, "stay thirsty, my aguila :drinking: , and stay thirsty, my friends :drinking: ".

User avatar
ET, the Extra Terrestrial
Privvy Counselor
Posts: 7032
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:01 am
Location: In the woods, watching

Re: Mathematical, Logical, And Not In The Least Circular Proofs

Postby ET, the Extra Terrestrial » Wed Jan 25, 2017 1:56 pm

Add a few paragraphs of fluff and an Executive Summary, and you could get that published in Scientific American.
"Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens."
("Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain.")
-- Friedrich Schiller (1759–1805)
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
-- Philip K Dick

What happens when all the renewable energy runs out?
-- Victoria Ayling

English isn't much of a language for swearing. When I studied Ancient Greek I was delighted to discover a single word - Rhaphanidosthai - which translates roughly as "Be thou thrust up the fundament with a radish for adultery."

User avatar
StayThirstyMyAguila
Definitely not Eric
Posts: 1349
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 2:16 pm
Location: The depths of Archaide.

Re: Mathematical, Logical, And Not In The Least Circular Proofs

Postby StayThirstyMyAguila » Wed Jan 25, 2017 4:57 pm

ET, the Extra Terrestrial wrote:Add a few paragraphs of fluff and an Executive Summary, and you could get that published in Scientific American.

Okay, I'll start with the fluff:
StayThirstyMyAguila wrote:Proof That The Flying Spaghetti Monster Exists

For the purposes of convenience, our variables are defined below:
  • To rep :mob: resent the FSM, we will use the Unicode symbol '⍾', because it looks quite a bit like Him of The Sauciest And Meatiest Balls, extending two appendages from His jiggly mass downward, pr :mob: obably to push us down in an attempt to keep us short . . . but I digress. The point is ⍾=the FSM.
  • 'P' will represent :mob: power. So P=power.
  • 'e' will mean, "existence of". So ex="the existence of x".
  • 't' will represent modern technology, specifically electrically powered technology. So t=electrically powered technology.
  • 'a' will mean, "all of". So ax="all of x".
  • 'K' will represent knowledge. So K=kno :mob: wledge.

Now the proof begins:
Fact I: Knowing the secrets and personal details of the lives of every living being would make you extremely uncomfortable around everyone.
Fact II: The FSM doesn't like being u :mob: ncomfortable.
Deduction I: The FSM is not, or chooses not to be, all-knowing. In variables, we can say that ⍾≠aK.
Fact III: I am typing this proof on a piece of modern technology, specifically a piece of modern technology that is powered electrically.
Deduction II: Technology, specifically electrically powered and modern technology, exists. So et=true (shoutout to ET here, congratz man, you exist!).
Fact IV: In order for other people to read this, i must be typing it on a functioning piece of modern, electrically powered technology.
Deduction III: I am typing this proof on a functioning, modern, electrically powered piece of technology.
Fact V: Electrically powered technology requires power to function.
Desperate Hope I: I exist.
Desperate :mob: Hope II: I am a someone.
Deduction IV: Someone is reading this.
Deduction V: Technology exists, because I am reading this.
Fact VI: If no one is reading this, then the proof is irrelevant and/or incorrect.
Deduc :mob: tion VI: This proof is relevant and/or correct.
Fact VII: Without power, electrically powered technology cannot function.
Deduction VII: Based on Deduction III and :mob: Fact VII, the existence of electrically powered, modern technology is tied to the existence of power. In variables, eP=et.
Fact VIII: Because t :mob: exists, P must also exist.
Deduction VIII: eP=true.
Fact IX: We know that knowled :mob: ge is power. In variables, this means that K=P.
Deduction IX: We can us :mob: e Fact IX and substitution to substitute P in for K in Deduction I. Therefore, ⍾≠aP.
Fact X: The Flying Spaghetti Monste :mob: r created the universe.
Deduction X: The Flying Spaghetti Monster has power. In variables, while ⍾≠aP, specifically because the variable 'a' is inv :mob: olved. Therefore, the 'a' must go for the '≠' to be :mob: come '='. So we have ⍾=P.
Fact XI: Multiplying both sides of an equation by :mob: a variable should still give you a true equation.
Deduction XI: Multiplying both sides of the second equation from Deduction X by 'e' will give us a true equation. Therefore, e⍾=eP.
Deduction XII: The equation :mob: from Deduction XI implies that the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is tied to the existence of power. In other words, if the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, then power must als :mob: o exist. And if the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist, then power must also be no :mob: nexistent.
Deduction XIII: Because the operator of the equation in Deducti :mob: on XII is '=', it works both ways, and the inverse of the equation, and its inherent relationship claim(s), must also be true.
Deduction XIV: Because the inverse of the relation :mob: ship claims presented in Deduction XII must also be true, that means that the if power exists, then the Flying Spaghetti Monster must also exist. It also means that if power does not exist, then the :mob: Flying Spaghetti Monster must also be nonexistent.
Deduction XV: We know from Deduction VIII that power exists, and because Deduction XIV states that if power exists, then the Flying Spaghetti Monster must exist, the Flyi :mob: ng Spaghetti Monster exists. In varia :mob: bles, we can say that e⍾=true.
Fact XII: This proof was pretty awesome.
Deduction XVI: This proof was so awesome :mob: , it probably made you thirsty.
Deduction XVII: I must be extremely awesome to have crea :mob: ted such an awesome proof.
Deduction XVIII: This proof's :mob: awesomeness and my awesomeness combined to make you so thirsty that you don't even realize you're thirsty, nor the fact that you want, nay, NEED to stay thirsty for more.
Deduction :mob: XIX: I need to remind you that you are thirsty and need to stay thirsty for more by saying, "stay thirsty, my aguila :drinking: , and stay thirsty, my friend :mob: s :drinking: ".

I'm sorry, I'll leave now . . .

User avatar
Nef Yoo BlackBeard
Tagliatelle Trainee Monk
Posts: 4230
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 10:45 pm
Location: off me leesh
Contact:

Re: Mathematical, Logical, And Not In The Least Circular Proofs

Postby Nef Yoo BlackBeard » Thu Jan 26, 2017 12:47 am

Da Cannin Feef wrote:I'm sorry, I'll leave now . . .


ware ye gowin ?
steel sum canins?
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
i wull elp ye ! :lech: :haha: :welcome:
cabin boy fir hyer. jyint hat no hextra charj.

User avatar
StayThirstyMyAguila
Definitely not Eric
Posts: 1349
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 2:16 pm
Location: The depths of Archaide.

Re: Mathematical, Logical, And Not In The Least Circular Proofs

Postby StayThirstyMyAguila » Thu Jan 26, 2017 10:33 am

Nef Yoo BlackBeard wrote:
Da Cannin Feef wrote:I'm sorry, I'll leave now . . .


ware ye gowin ?
steel sum canins?
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
i wull elp ye ! :lech: :haha: :welcome:

That's not a question, comment, concern, suggestion concerning a proof previously posted here, nor is it a mathematical, logical, and/or circular proof. Get off the thread and put that somewhere else please. :facewall: :whip:

User avatar
Nef Yoo BlackBeard
Tagliatelle Trainee Monk
Posts: 4230
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 10:45 pm
Location: off me leesh
Contact:

Re: Mathematical, Logical, And Not In The Least Circular Proofs

Postby Nef Yoo BlackBeard » Thu Jan 26, 2017 11:11 am

wen ya gunna steel dem canins again ?
rrrrrrrr
i gunna poss in alla yer treds alla tyme cos ye be funnee rrrr
cabin boy fir hyer. jyint hat no hextra charj.

User avatar
StayThirstyMyAguila
Definitely not Eric
Posts: 1349
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 2:16 pm
Location: The depths of Archaide.

Re: Mathematical, Logical, And Not In The Least Circular Proofs

Postby StayThirstyMyAguila » Fri Jan 27, 2017 1:22 pm

Seriously though I'm trying to find a way to shove this proof into the mold that is the submission format, found here: https://www.scientificamerican.com/page ... tructions/

Should I really send it to them? I mean, if they've done something like this before, I'm all for it. It IS pretty scientific, using evidence to support a conclusion chosen prior to finding the evidence.

User avatar
StayThirstyMyAguila
Definitely not Eric
Posts: 1349
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 2:16 pm
Location: The depths of Archaide.

Re: Mathematical, Logical, And Not In The Least Circular Proofs

Postby StayThirstyMyAguila » Mon Jan 30, 2017 4:23 pm

Oh no . . .
I've just discovered something dreadful, and I need someone to show me where the clerical error is . . . those darn clerks, always leaving their errors lyin' around . . .

Counter Claim, And Obviously Untrue 'Proof', That The FSM Is Non-Existent

Our variables are defined below:
  • To represent the FSM, we will use the Unicode symbol '⍾', because it looks quite a bit like Him of The Sauciest And Meatiest Balls, extending two appendages from His jiggly mass downward, probably to push us down in an attempt to keep us short . . . but I digress. The point is ⍾=the FSM.
  • "Nothing", or as it is more commonly know, "null", will be simply represented by 'null'. So null=null.
  • 'E' will mean energy, specifically kinetic energy. So E=potential energy.
  • 'm' will be mass. So m=mass.
  • 'c' will be the speed of light. So c=whatever the speed of light is (the exact number is unimportant).

The so-called, "proof" begins below:
Fact I: Einstein said, in his theories on relativity, that E=mc².
Deduction I: According to Bobby's assertion that the FSM slows himself down by orbiting a black hole, we can deduce that relativity exists.
Fact II: Einstein said, in his theories on relativity, that nothing can go faster than the speed of light.
Fact III: Bobby has also said that the FSM stays invisible by bending light rays around himself.
Deduction II: From Fact III, it must also logically be true that the FSM can react to things at the speed of light (otherwise the light would move too fast for him to bend) if he so chooses.
Deduction III: From Deduction II, we can safely say that the FSM can go faster than the speed of light.
Deduction IV: From Fact II, we know that only nothing, or null, can go faster than the speed of light.
Deduction V: From Deductions II and IV, we must come to the sad conclusion that ⍾=null. In words, the FSM is null.

I trust someone will soon show me the obvious flaw in this latest "proof".


EDIT: I just realized the flaw in my reasoning. See Deduction III.
Deduction III states that the FSM must be going FASTER than the speed of light. This is incorrect: He merely needs to go AT the speed of light. And since nothing can go FASTER than the speed of light, the FSM is not nothing.

User avatar
Nef Yoo BlackBeard
Tagliatelle Trainee Monk
Posts: 4230
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 10:45 pm
Location: off me leesh
Contact:

Re: Mathematical, Logical, And Not In The Least Circular Proofs

Postby Nef Yoo BlackBeard » Mon Jan 30, 2017 4:30 pm

canin feefin awayyyyyyyyyyyyyrrrrr
cabin boy fir hyer. jyint hat no hextra charj.

User avatar
StayThirstyMyAguila
Definitely not Eric
Posts: 1349
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 2:16 pm
Location: The depths of Archaide.

Re: Mathematical, Logical, And Not In The Least Circular Proofs

Postby StayThirstyMyAguila » Tue Jan 31, 2017 1:07 pm

Hello, my fellow mathematical, logical, and circular friends.

I am posting this to inform you of a venture I am proud to undertake.
Many say it will drive me into madness.
Others say it will drive me further into madness.
Others are just mad.
And still others say that men were not meant to play FSM.

I will attempt to unravel an equation.
What equation you ask? Good question, I respond.
You know, most likely, about the equation detailing the way that the FSM flies, no? If you do not, look it up.
Bobby Henderson himself said that the equation should never be tinkered with, and that no one should ever try to understand it.
Well, hey, they said that Columbus was mad. He was, but he got lucky, too.
So if he can get lucky . . . why can't I?
Please take the above sentence out of context. I beg you. If you didn't, shame on you.

For this reason I will likely be locked away, and certainly not posting on this thread until I have finished (I may/may not post in other threads in the meantime). If I'm not online for five days . . . bury me with my money.

User avatar
Nef Yoo BlackBeard
Tagliatelle Trainee Monk
Posts: 4230
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 10:45 pm
Location: off me leesh
Contact:

Re: Mathematical, Logical, And Not In The Least Circular Proofs

Postby Nef Yoo BlackBeard » Tue Jan 31, 2017 2:15 pm

Some cannon feefing wanky wrote:Hello, my fellow mathematical, logical, and circular friends.

I am posting this to inform you of a venture I am proud to undertake.
Many say it will drive me into madness.
Others say it will drive me further into madness.
Others are just mad.
And still others say that men were not meant to play FSM.

I will attempt to unravel an equation.
What equation you ask? Good question, I respond.
You know, most likely, about the equation detailing the way that the FSM flies, no? If you do not, look it up.
Bobby Henderson himself said that the equation should never be tinkered with, and that no one should ever try to understand it.
Well, hey, they said that Columbus was mad. He was, but he got lucky, too.
So if he can get lucky . . . why can't I?
Please take the above sentence out of context. I beg you. If you didn't, shame on you.

For this reason I will likely be locked away, and certainly not posting on this thread until I have finished (I may/may not post in other threads in the meantime). If I'm not online for five days . . . bury me with a Loose Cannon.
cabin boy fir hyer. jyint hat no hextra charj.

User avatar
StayThirstyMyAguila
Definitely not Eric
Posts: 1349
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 2:16 pm
Location: The depths of Archaide.

Re: Mathematical, Logical, And Not In The Least Circular Proofs

Postby StayThirstyMyAguila » Tue Jan 31, 2017 3:50 pm

I've already run into a problem, and I need some help.
I lack some knowledge needed to perform certain operations (I live in America, so my education leaves me so bored I'm able to surf these forums in the middle of class and still get As).
So what does that vertical line mean? It looks like '/' but with a curly bit on each end. I already tried Wikipedia, and that didn't help.
Please if someone could help?

User avatar
ET, the Extra Terrestrial
Privvy Counselor
Posts: 7032
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:01 am
Location: In the woods, watching

Re: Mathematical, Logical, And Not In The Least Circular Proofs

Postby ET, the Extra Terrestrial » Tue Jan 31, 2017 4:43 pm

Image

That is the integral symbol. Integration is the first basic operation of calculus. It is a summing of infinitesimally small changes, as in a curve's deviation from a straight line at adjacent mathematical points.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_symbol

It would take a really long time to explain calculus, if you're not already familiar with it.
"Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens."
("Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain.")
-- Friedrich Schiller (1759–1805)
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
-- Philip K Dick

What happens when all the renewable energy runs out?
-- Victoria Ayling

English isn't much of a language for swearing. When I studied Ancient Greek I was delighted to discover a single word - Rhaphanidosthai - which translates roughly as "Be thou thrust up the fundament with a radish for adultery."

User avatar
StayThirstyMyAguila
Definitely not Eric
Posts: 1349
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 2:16 pm
Location: The depths of Archaide.

Re: Mathematical, Logical, And Not In The Least Circular Proofs

Postby StayThirstyMyAguila » Tue Jan 31, 2017 5:15 pm

I'm not familiar.
Thankfully, Google is.
Unfortunately, Google uses big words.
I can see why I need to know Calculus, considering that the first law of calculus has been referenced more than once.
Well, I'll still do my best to decipher what's left.
Thanks!


Return to “All Things FSM”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests