The logic of that proof is flawed. No mention of whether all r's are q's or whether q is a finite set including only p's and r's. In that proof "r is not a p" is an equally valid assumption.
The logic of that proof is flawed. No mention of whether all r's are q's or whether q is a finite set including only p's and r's. In that proof "r is not a p" is an equally valid assumption.
What do you mean "we?" I've been spelling it "penes" since junior high.
On on unrelated note, I've been using "computerii" since 11th grade (I know it's wrong), even though I once smacked a kid that was arguing that "virii" is correct.
I was kinda mocking the smart people thread by seeing if anyone recognized the logical fallacy, kinda expecting those that did would realize it a joke, lol.
What do you mean "we?" I've been spelling it "penes" since junior high.
On on unrelated note, I've been using "computerii" since 11th grade (I know it's wrong), even though I once smacked a kid that was arguing that "virii" is correct.
I was kinda mocking the smart people thread by seeing if anyone recognized the logical fallacy, kinda expecting those that did would realize it a joke, lol.
I knew what you were doing but I thought yer penis thread needed a little more strangeness.
Rosanne Rosannadanna
Saturday Night Live skit, Always on the News bit. Gilda Radner would play this woman who would go off on tangential arguments on any little topic. At the end, she'd realize her mistake and go Oh, Never Mind.
I knew what you were doing but I thought yer penis thread needed a little more strangeness.
Rosanne Rosannadanna
Saturday Night Live skit, Always on the News bit. Gilda Radner would play this woman who would go off on tangential arguments on any little topic. At the end, she'd realize her mistake and go Oh, Never Mind.