Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Porsche2007, post: 1242491, member: 3757&quot;]rlm&#039;s cents,</p><p>I don&#039;t have evidence; though, I&#039;ll limit myself to a brief summary of my initial thoughts.</p><p><br /></p><p>The separation of &quot;1531&quot; and &quot;1569&quot; from the base of possible winners, is irrelevant. If separated from their original base, both numbers acquire the same weight (making them interchangeable). If they are maintained within their base, the following prevails over the condition of &quot;same weight&quot;:</p><p>1. first reported and first place, would represent a disequilibrium that amalgamates itself to naturalness and some type of logic.</p><p>1a. By naturalness and various mathematical fields: &quot;reported first but further&quot; maintains less weight than &quot;reported first and closer&quot;; therefore, they are not interchangeable. (Clarification: my anterior words are not fallacious.)</p><p><br /></p><p>&quot;someone is within eight numbers of the correct answer&quot;, and <i>then</i> &quot;the person who holds second [place] is within 30 [numbers].&quot; </p><p>The order in which &quot;within eight&quot; and &quot;within 30&quot; were introduced, is quite clear. Teach an infant to count until 30 and, while including two numbers (highest number last), tell it anything that possesses direct relation to the two numbers. By naturalness, the creature shouldn&#039;t consider your second number as a commencement of a possible deduction. (One should specify the composition of &quot;A&quot;, before explaining &quot;B&quot;; if one projects in the contrary manner, part of our prefrontal cortex should help compose &quot;A&quot; in order to comprehend &quot;B&quot;.) An example of something truly interchangeable, would be the following:</p><p>- you offer me an inconsistent dialogue to the naturalness and/or a certain type of logic.</p><p>-- if I adhere myself to your style: you oblige me to play with something open that is clearly exposed to being closed by naturalness and/or some type of logic.</p><p>-- invalid possibility for an equation, but correct: if no one locks, nothing occurs.</p><p>- I offer you a consistent dialogue to the naturalness and/or a certain type of logic.</p><p>-- if you adhere yourself to my style: I oblige you to play with something close that is clearly not exposed to being opened by naturalness and/or some type of logic.</p><p>-- invalid possibility for an equation, but correct: if someone locks, nothing occurs.</p><p><br /></p><p>Furthermore: one shouldn&#039;t suppose something discarded by naturalness and logic (of some type), to discard that something cannot be part of naturalness and logic at a same &quot;time&quot;. Therefore, you are deforming the nature of what has been said. In contrast to my anteriorly mentioned words: would you believe that second-order logic should be a direct extension for first-order logic? (Be careful about possible inconsistencies.) </p><p>If I radio: &quot;our main suspect took the third exit, going north from my current location&quot;, and &quot;another possible suspect took my closest exit&quot;...based on what rational field should they not hang me? In this case, I can grant myself the pleasure to ignore a same variable of naturalness.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Salutations.</p><p><br /></p><p><img src="http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/7596/aaq1x.png" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>[HR][/HR]</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>You do have a future in Vegas. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie8" alt=":D" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in