subgenius wrote:Alfredo wrote:I know I already asked and no one seems to care, but this is just too silly to leave unengaged. Allow me to entertain myself at your own expense.
Can't believe you really missed this but...
"Dr Shades is in the room" and "Dr Shades is NOT in the room" are innaccurate statements.
More accurate statements might be "Half of Dr Shades is in one room." You get the point.
actually you completely missed the point, and offered something up that is basically nonsense.
I didn't miss your point. You stated it before you gave the examples... "self-contradiction is not a determination for true or false." Regardless, I posted about your examples. They simply don't support your point. Simply saying "that does not negate the example i offered" doesn't make it true. Both statements are not accurate and I explained why.
actually you completely missed the point, and offered something up that is basically nonsense. The true "out" for that contradiction is that Shades is in neither room, he is simply in the doorway. <-----that is what you getting served feels like
(hey, at least you were entertaining yourself, the rest of us....not so much).
OK... a poor jab after a bunch of irrelevant nonsense...
Think about a blue shirt....you say it is a blue shirt and i say it is a Brandeis blue shirt...both of us are, in fact, correct and accurate.
Only the slightest clue as to what you're talking about. So, you're going to have to expand your point.
congratulations, your post actually made me laugh. So, what of a pile is an "estimation"??? The same is true, at what point, then, do you "estimate" that it is not a pile anymore?
Besides, pile is not used an estimation, an estimation of what? do you actually have access to an online dictionary or are you in one of those countries?
A pile is simply a "quantity" of anything heaped together, massed together, put upon each other, etc........what the estimation??
I never had to use a dictionary. I used a perfectly reasonable definition. I think estimation may even be inherent to most definitions and that's your hang up. Are you suggesting that it's possible to speak of a pile in some sense that's not an estimation? Remember, my point is that you can't use definitions that imply estimation when you're measuring more accurately.
The only convincing thing you've offered in response to my post is to define "pile". So there you have it, a pile is no longer a pile when it is not longer a "quantity" of anything heaped together, massed together, put upon each other, etc...
Maybe you could explain how this definition creates a self-contradiction by defining "quantity" (in some sense that's not an estimation) so you can prove your point.