Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Politics and Society Moderation Discussion Only Fans Thread Politics and Society Moderation Discussion Only Fans Thread

11-07-2023 , 07:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chezlaw
The alls and the somes are fine.

I dont want to tarnish russell but I think he would agre with my issue. We are not fortunate enough to find logic quite as simple as D2 does.
.
11-07-2023 , 07:50 AM
Life is not logic.
11-07-2023 , 08:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chezlaw
.
This is your "explanation" of the issue is to vaguely allude to the existence of one? Perhaps communication is not for you.
11-07-2023 , 09:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rococo
Why are we doing red and blue, with purple in the middle.

Red and yellow, with a nice sunset orange in the middle would be more aesthetically pleasing.
unamerican.
11-07-2023 , 02:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by d2_e4
Can you quote the post where you explained the issue? Thanks.
Does this have anything to do with Russell's Paradox?

(Russell's Paradox reads, 'Does "the set of all sets which do not include themselves" include itself or not? Because if it does, then it doesn't, but if it doesn't, then it does.' I think Wittgenstein had some arcane mathematical problem with it, but basically it's artificial wordplay.)

Not to be confused with Russell's Teapot, of course, though that was a bit silly as well.
11-07-2023 , 02:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 57 On Red
Does this have anything to do with Russell's Paradox?

(Russell's Paradox reads, 'Does "the set of all sets which do not include themselves" include itself or not? Because if it does, then it doesn't, but if it doesn't, then it does.' I think Wittgenstein had some arcane mathematical problem with it, but basically it's artificial wordplay.)
Maybe, although I doubt it. Chez seemed to take issue with a simple syllogism though, nothing self-referential there. Tbh I think he's trolling.
11-07-2023 , 02:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 57 On Red
Does this have anything to do with Russell's Paradox?

(Russell's Paradox reads, 'Does "the set of all sets which do not include themselves" include itself or not? Because if it does, then it doesn't, but if it doesn't, then it does.' I think Wittgenstein had some arcane mathematical problem with it, but basically it's artificial wordplay.)

Not to be confused with Russell's Teapot, of course, though that was a bit silly as well.
mother****er, if Bertrand Russell knew an overt transphobe and racist like you was using his name to make your revolting arguments, he would rise up out of his grave and smack you in the mouth

Last edited by Rococo; 11-07-2023 at 03:49 PM.
11-07-2023 , 02:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 57 On Red
Does this have anything to do with Russell's Paradox?

(Russell's Paradox reads, 'Does "the set of all sets which do not include themselves" include itself or not? Because if it does, then it doesn't, but if it doesn't, then it does.' I think Wittgenstein had some arcane mathematical problem with it, but basically it's artificial wordplay.)

Not to be confused with Russell's Teapot, of course, though that was a bit silly as well.
He knows what it's to do with. I gave him a link to on denoting.

It's a famous piece of work.
11-07-2023 , 02:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl_TheOG_Marx
mother****er, if Bertrand Russell knew an overt transphobe and racist like you was using his name to make your revolting arguments, he would rise up out of his grave and smack you in the mouth
I see your little hiatus has served you well, you seem much more zen your return.
11-07-2023 , 02:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chezlaw
He knows what it's to do with. I gave him a link to on denoting.

It's a famous piece of work.
I have no idea what denoting is or what you're on about. If you want me to engage, explain it in your own words.
11-07-2023 , 03:05 PM
I gather you have no idea.

Read about it or don't. It's there if you want it
11-07-2023 , 03:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by d2_e4
I see your little hiatus has served you well, you seem much more zen your return.
as opposed to the classically calm and sober d2_e4...

Anyway, 57 on Red is, quite literally, deeply transphobic and racist. He hides it well from the less critical of readers amongst us, but I just want to be clear about who you all are having this friendly convo with.
11-07-2023 , 03:20 PM
Two bald men fighting over a comb.
11-07-2023 , 03:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl_TheOG_Marx
as opposed to the classically calm and sober d2_e4...
That's me, homie.

11-07-2023 , 03:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl_TheOG_Marx
as opposed to the classically calm and sober d2_e4...

Anyway, 57 on Red is, quite literally, deeply transphobic and racist. He hides it well from the less critical of readers amongst us, but I just want to be clear about who you all are having this friendly convo with.
Karl,

57 on Red doesn't hide his views particularly well. He has been banned in the past for his posting on certain topics. But you don't have free license to be abusive just because you think the target of your abuse deserves it.
11-07-2023 , 05:58 PM
You guys ever think about space?
11-07-2023 , 06:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chezlaw
The alls and the somes are fine.

I dont want to tarnish russell but I think he would agre with my issue. We are not fortunate enough to find logic quite as simple as D2 does.
GPT prompt: Is it true that if 2 plus 2 does not equal 4, then 2 plus 2 equals 4?

Quote:
Answer: No, that statement is not true. That statement does not imply that "2 + 2 = 4"; it implies the opposite. If "2 plus 2 does not equal 4," it means that the basic arithmetic operation of addition is not working as expected or is producing an incorrect result. In a conventional base-10 arithmetic system, 2 plus 2 indeed equals 4. If it doesn't, there is an issue with the arithmetic system or the way the addition operation is being performed.

If you're suggesting a hypothetical scenario where the fundamental rules of arithmetic break down and 2 plus 2 doesn't equal 4, it would not automatically imply that 2 plus 2 equals 4. It would imply a problem or inconsistency within the hypothetical system, and further analysis would be needed to understand the implications and consequences within that context. However, in standard arithmetic, 2 plus 2 equals 4, and that statement remains true.
11-07-2023 , 09:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rococo
Karl,

57 on Red doesn't hide his views particularly well. He has been banned in the past for his posting on certain topics. But you don't have free license to be abusive just because you think the target of your abuse deserves it.
Well, his posting in the Israel thread is just non stop abuse of Israeli's/Jews on the grounds they got what they deserved on October 7th. So he is consistent at least.
11-07-2023 , 10:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by John21
GPT prompt: Is it true that if 2 plus 2 does not equal 4, then 2 plus 2 equals 4?
I tried "2+2=5" in Bing AI

"If 2+2=5, it would be a violation of the fundamental laws of arithmetic. The sum of 2 and 2 is 4. However, if you want to use this equation in Microsoft Excel, you can use the IF formula to return a value based on whether the condition is true or false. For example, if you enter =IF(2+2=5,"It's true!","It's false!") in a cell, Excel will return “It’s false!” because the condition is false 1. If you want to solve this equation, you can use an equation solver like Mathway 2. Alternatively, you can use Microsoft Math Solver to solve the equation -2*-2+5 3."

The correct answer is of course that it's a song by Radiohead
11-07-2023 , 10:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson
You guys ever think about space?
It's big. Really big
11-08-2023 , 06:16 AM
Even bigger than 5?
11-08-2023 , 06:21 AM
Some of these AI responses look like the engine has been trained on chez' speech patterns.
11-08-2023 , 06:59 AM
One would expect no less. Its not quite perfect yet but early days
11-08-2023 , 12:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rococo
Karl,

57 on Red doesn't hide his views particularly well. He has been banned in the past for his posting on certain topics. But you don't have free license to be abusive just because you think the target of your abuse deserves it.
I mean, he quite obviously does hide them well, or else he would be perma-IP banned from all of 2p2. I'm under the impression that overt racism and transphobia is grounds for getting banned. I'm not much of a rule-checker, please correct me if I'm wrong and racism and transphobia are cool here.

He deserves far worse than me arguing with him with a similar fervor ("abuse", lolololol) with which other people argue with me. He is a very, very bad person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunyain
Well, his posting in the Israel thread is just non stop abuse of Israeli's/Jews on the grounds they got what they deserved on October 7th. So he is consistent at least.
I've never abused a Jewish person in my life. I AM opposed to Zionism, as I've made clear. It seems that you are, deeply moronically, equating "Zionism" with "Judaism".

You are consistent as well. Consistent in saying the most hare-brained rightwing pablum at all times.
11-08-2023 , 01:00 PM
I guess people are still allowed to call jews nazis

      
m