Zodiac is very intelligent, and I think he's quite funny. But hes still a dim.

No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

Things you've failed at since joining this site:
* Arithmetic
* Science
* Programming
* Elementary set theory
* Not being unbelievably thick

This time it is basic first order logic you have failed at.

"For every possible open valve, there is a possible closed valve that permits as much water." That is the premiss.

"Any valve lets through as much water closed as it does open." That is your thicky misunderstanding of the premiss.

You fail. Good Christ, you fail.

Yes, and I shall defend that as well.

Premiss: For any possible open valve O, there is a possible closed but leaky valve L, which lets through exactly as much water as O.

Premiss: For any possible closed valve C, there is a possible open but blocked valve B, which lets through exactly as much water as C.

Therefore: The set of open valves lets through, collectively, exactly as much water as the set of closed valves.

Corollary: Closed-valvedness does not inhibit the flow of water.

Your confused because your thinking of the set of *actual* valves, and mistakenly inferring things about closed-valvedness in general.

Zodiac is a dim.

You plainly haven't understood the consequences -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I.'s Important Theorem.

Let M be any mind. Then the Theorem states: There is a closed mind C, which accepts and rejects exactly the same propositions as M.

Corollary: For any open mind O which does not "inhibit the entrance of truth", there is a closed mind C which accepts and rejects exactly the same propositions as O, and therefore also does not "inhibit the entrance of truth".

Corollary: The set of closed minds is exactly as accepting of the truth as the set of open minds.

Corollary: Closed-mindedness does not inhibit the entrance of truth.

Corollary: You're a dim.

The concept of positing something, and then defending it without positing all sorts of other things willy-nilly, is quite, quite unknown to you.

You objected to -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I.'s Important Theorem. I've rebutted your objection. That's what.

Oh, this.

Utter, utter tosh. By "two minds M and N are equivalent", I mean: For every proposition P, M is open to P iff N is open to P. That in no way entails that the two minds "belong to the same person".

Trivial example: I replicate my uncle in an Uncle-replicator. Uncle and Uncle-2 are both open to exactly the same propositions, at least for a short while after replication. Therefore Uncle and Uncle-2's minds are equivalent with respect to openness. But Uncle and Uncle-2 are separate people. QED.

Is this really beyond you, or are you deliberately being dim?

Would you consider yourself an agnostic with regard to the proposition that there exists an undetectable nob protruding from your forehead?

The preferred term is "a wooden".

Let's be formal about this, Dovina.

Def. A closed mind of domain D is a mind that deflects all propostions that are not in D, regardless of whether or not said propositions are true.

Def. An open mind is a mind that accepts a proposition if and only if it can convince itself that the proposition is true.

Dovina's Theorem. There exist true propositions that are picked up by an open mind and deflected by a closed one.

Proof. Let C be the closed mind with the empty domain. C therefore deflects all propositions, so in particular it deflects the true proposition "Dovina has a woman's brain."

Let O be the open mind that thinks Dovina has a woman's brain. By definition, O accepts the proposition "Dovina has a woman's brain" and we have the theorem. QED


-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I.'s Important Theorem. For every open mind, there is an equivalent closed mind that accepts and rejects the same propositions.

Proof. Let O be an arbitrary open mind. Let D be the collection of all propositions that O can convince itself are true. O is clearly equivalent to the closed mind with domain D. QED.

Corollary. All Dovina has said is that different minds can disagree about the validity of a proposition. :(

You remind me of myself as a boy. Trapped in a wheeled-chair, terrified of the antlers under the bed.

You've also utterly missed the point, which was only to be expected. You're not crap at writing because you can't spell. You're crap at writing because you choose bad words. You don't understand this. You probably never will, because your intensely dim.

Actually, I said "your" deliberately. I say things like "your dim", "your thick", "your a tool", to provoke retards like you. Please, browse my rich history of comments.

Congratulations, your a thicky.

The boredom threshold for most people comes earlier than their JODHPURS THRESHOLD. I aim for the Jodhpurs.

People would take you more seriously if you didn't write like a mouldy walnut. I'm going to rewrite some of your post so it reads less like you've been felching Ayn Rand. Pay attention, you fucking dimwit.

"To respond to zodiac, though I shouldn't:
1) I said -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. was proving my point, which you're also doing; therefore I don't need to.

For me to be self-righteous, I'd have to think my behavior was a model, and that it was my duty to change you. I don't believe either. In fact, I'd rather you continue in the same way, so we can see who the righteous one really is.

2) If the reader gets lost, well, I'm partly responsible. But it probably means they should pay closer attention.

God may not call things "bollocks" in that particular context. But I meant that, according to the faithful, God alone has the authority to pass judgment. In that God represents truth and knowledge, only he can judge a thing true or false. Humans fall short, because we don't know everything."

I shall stop here, because point 3 is an impenetrable fuck-tangle of unbelievable guff.

IMPROVEMENTS:
1. Contains line breaks. The original is an enormous, unbroken cud-sausage of words.
2. Uses less than half as many words as the original.
3. Operates at a cognitive level above that of a pea.
4. Spelled and punctuated properly. Devoid of ellipses.
5. Avoids tortuous noun chains.
6. Sounds less like a prime bollock.
7. Your a tool.

Until you learn to write without sounding like a first-year philosophy essay, shut up.

P.S. My name is spelled with two hyphens, two equals signs, an underscore, a comma, and two full stops. I went to the trouble of legally changing it, so you might as well get it right.

Do you ever read what you've written and think "Good Christ I write an awful lot of bollocks"?

By the way richa, the same goes double for you.

You're an idiot, and you have no idea how to write. What you think of as "articulate argument" is actually "unbelievable waffle". Do shut up.