usenet weirdness

Of course, your religion is making a saint from that trash. I've read some interview with him from a scan of an old newspaper.

And I have quite enough examples of how you "discuss", poor fanatic trash.

Any programmer language has boolean OR and boolean AND implemented - but I've never seen an implementation of boolean IMPLIES. You're saying it yourself, the whole of boolean logic is trivial. Do you think that the real "implies" is trivial too?

- so

One of the elements in the modern continental drift story is

The cute bit about this is that newly formed oceanic plate gets magnetised by the earth's magnetic field as it cools off, and retains that magnetisation, even when the earth magnetic field reverses.

You can look at the magnetic state of the seafloor by flying or floating a magnetometer across the surface of the and the seafloor ends up bar-codes with stripes magnetised in opposite direction. That one one of the clinching bits of evidence that got continental drift widely accepted.

I came across the statement in 2016, but I did not keep the reference, sorry. I'm not a cosmologist. It did contribute to my mistrust of cosmology as a science.

Jeroen Belleman

Your reading comprehension isn't impressive. And your frequent indulgence in text-chopping isn't characteristic of rational discussion.

Implication is a complex process. The dictionary definition is

"the conclusion that can be drawn from something although it is not explicitly stated."

The process of drawing a valid implication requires you to keep in mind that correlation doesn't imply causation, and people like you, drawn from the lunatic fringe, don't seem to keep this in mind.

If I had a religion, it might have saints. Science isn't a religion. People get remembered for the work they've done, until it gets superseded.

If Newton were a saint - and nobody who has read a biography of him would describe him in that way - Einstein might have a similar status, but that really isn't the way science deals with people who have made impressive contributions.

And your reading comprehension - as exhibited here - isn't impressive. You do go in for test-chopping, so you clearly don't pay much attention to what you read. You mine it for ostensibly plausible sounds bites, and your grasp of what might impress other people isn't all that impressive either.

There is - simply - nothing to read in sick mumble of a brainwashed religious maniac.

And your frequent

said a piece of s*it always chopping any question it's getting.

isn't characteristic of rational discussion.

It is, and Boole's table of implication is not. Boole's table of implication is a mistake.

The S*it of Einstein definitely is, and it tries to make a saint from that trash.

Rather - as imagined by a fanatic piece of s*it trained by insane religion to spit and slander at its enemies.

- isn't impressive.

Said a piece of s*it chopping any question it's getting...

so you clearly don't pay much attention

Larry Niven described it better - as a science fiction author he had to.

Attributing it to Einstein seems to be pure invention. It didn't show up in 1950's science fiction, and Einstein died in 1955.

You. or something that might look very like you. Transforming some 70kgm of matter into energy and transforming it back to matter implies transmitting great deal of energy. A hydrogen bomb transforms 0.7kgm of mass into energy. Transforming the energy into exactly the right sort of matter to exactly duplicate you might be tricky

Ah, yet over on sci.math, we had Ross and Virgil, who eventually came to, if not open agreement, at least not open disagreement, and, in a sense, agreement.

What do you disagree about? Presuming otherwise that physics, mathematics, and so on is otherwise "agreeable".

I rather have a good estimation of both of you which is perhaps naive yet besides that I think that about nobody or very, very few actually have a good and thorough account of theory, you can each have good accounts of theory.

Oftentimes irritation among otherwise reasonable, socialized people gets ingrained, or engrained, yet there's something to be said for bygones and the re-setting and the face-saving and so on.

Anyways, is there any actual arguments about electronics or something? That then everyone could pile on. Or, perhaps there's an account for the "Solomonic Judgment" if that's widely known to everybody.

The Internet doesn't need for tit-for-tat trolls, yet, what's really of a great account is the rehabilitation of the trolling.

Are you aware of any other perceived explanations of the emission of visible light?

I suppose there's Cerenkov boom or Brehmsstrahlung the braking radiation.

In this context of energy is reductionism, these sorts accounts actually explaining things are for anti-reductionism.

Any declarative or procedural statement makes "implies", it's called "defined behavior".

De Morgan's rules are "direct implication" and quite thoroughly sound about dyadic propositions.

Boole's would be alright except "material implication" the "quasi-modal", where "false antecedent" or "false consequent" are vacuous.

So, "direct implication" is causality, "material implication" is a hazard.

The usual idea that "material implication" is included in classical logic is about the worst thing in logic today, and since Chrysippus' moods for the modal, since antiquity, there is a classical account for a modal, temporal, relevance logic, of which "quasi-modal logic" is not.

It takes a fairly screwed-up mind to read my output as the ramblings of a brainwashed religious maniac. That, in itself, is defective reading comprehension.

I do snip blocks of text which are irrelevant to the point under discussion. That isn't text-chopping, though you won't be up to the discriminating analysis required make the distinction.

But that wasn't what I was talking about, as the text you chopped made clear.

I'm happy to accept that George Boole's original papers may have used the word to mean something different, but there was no hint of that in my Theory of Computation Course.

You can't understand it, and imagine that this means that nobody else can either. This is "projection" and it's a mental health problem that you exhibit. Nobody is going to bother to try and cure you, because you are too inept to be danger to anybody else,

It's difficult to spit in a text only forum. The character sets don't include symbols for spittle.

While any accurate description of you antics is necessarily slanderous, it's necessary to bring out precisely how fatuous your claims are.

As if you knew what that meant.

Wrong. Actually, oppositely - it takes a fairly screwed-up mind to read them a different way.

That, in itself, is defective reading

You just chop what you dislike. Not that any consequence, logic, honesty or dignity can be expected from a brainwashed religious maniac like you.

But that is what I was talking about.

He doesn't believe in anthropogenic global warming, and cites transparently false climate change denial propaganda whenever he gets the chance.

Citing peer-reviewed published papers doesn't change his opinions. He believes what he reads in the Murdoch owned gutter-press. As an Australian, I was delighted when Rupert Murdoch renounced his Australian citizenship and became an American, but getting the same nonsense fed back via my user-group takes a lot of the joy out of it.

Beats me. I've been posting on sci.electronics.design for about thirty years now, and John Larkin was there before I was. There are factions, but when it comes to practical electronic design, it seems to work tolerably well.

Wrong, like always, I can understand it very well - and an assertion of a fanatic idiot able to nothing except spitting,slandering and avoiding uncomfortable questions means nothing.

, and imagine that this means that nobody else

And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden by your insane religion keep indicating improper t'=t in improper seconds. Somehow - a bunch of brainwashed religious maniacs screaming "IMPROPER!!! IMPROPER!!!" couldn't prevent that. Common sense has been warning your idiot guru.

You manage, and so do your fellow scum.

Hm. Since 1999 or so I wrote to sci.math about continuity and infinity, since I was interested in foundations of mathematics and then dissatisfied with the standard account.

For example, I wrote constructive formalisms for a continuous domain as line-drawing or iota-values, as connecting 0 and 1 with infinitely-many constant-monotone strictly-increasing infinitesimal "iota-values", i.e. "nonstandard" about real numbers, then also defended a thorough account of re-Vitali-ization for mathematical foundations.

This involved the feather-ruffling and besides while at the same time it's a genteel sort of account. Virgil and I often had spats, yet arrived at an un-grudging appreciation and even admiration of each other. It reminds of Dirk v.d.M., who used to tease about as like "the tilting", i.e. at the windmills, yet when I mentioned that I'd written multiple sigma-algebras for the measure of my little function to establish its suitability as a continuous domain, never heard again about it.

So, I studied foundations and formalisms of continuity and infinity for a couple decades before getting into the study of premier theories of physics like general relativity and quantum mechanics. Of course, I had a thorough introduction to the _standard_ account before getting into the _non-standard_ or rather _super-standard_ account.