Ron:
Ron: Then why waste both of our time.
Tuukka:
Well, seems like if you have the last say on nonrelativizably used
predicates, it will be a misconception. You are perhaps wasting your
time, but I am not wasting my time by removing misconceptions.
Tuukka:
Incorrect. Nonrelativizably used predicates cannot be proven to have, or to not
have, any properties. Hence, they may neither (provably) have nor not have the
property of being an abstract noun. Nonrelativizability itself is not a
property of a predicate, but a property of the way in which a predicate is used.
Ron:
Right, just like an abstract noun. If you would take the time to research how
an abstract noun is used
in grammar you would see how it relates to nonrelativizably used predicates.
Tuukka:
An example of an abstract noun is: "bravery". This noun has the property
of being the opposite of "cowardice". This is kindergarten stuff.
Tuukka:
Yes, they have to be, if they want to understand what I'm saying. Don't you
tell me to dumb myself down. If everyone did that, it wouldn't be a pretty
sight.
Ron:
Well then have fun sniffing your own farts, the ability to explain an idea in
simple terms is the hallmark
of a brilliant thinker. Shrouding your ideas in a complex esoteric language
seems like putting up a bit
of a smokescreen to hide the possibility that you really dont know what the
heck you are talking about.
If everyone would make an effort to clarify their meaning when expressing ideas
it would indeed
be a pretty sight. It would cut through alot of bullshit.
..
Tuukka:
And never, ever, solve the Poincare conjecture, the four color theorem,
and myriads of others. Just sticks and stones and a happy Ron.
-Tuukka
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
