Visual demonstration of infentisimals

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Do you mean 'infinitesimals'? FFS. How hard is it to just google these things???

[RCSaunders]

Does everything need to be made explicit for you?

Yes!

(1.unit = 1.unit) = True
(1.unit < 2.unit) = True
(1.unit = 2.unit) = False
(1.unit >2.unit) = False

Unit of what? OF WHATEVER.

Until you have specified the, "whatever," you have still not stated anything true or false in spite of Mr. Boole's misuse of the terms, "true," and, "false," to signify logical states. You've been taken in by the Pythagorean fallacy--numbers have no physical or ontological existence. They are only a method and only exist as concepts (in human minds) and only have meaning as descriptions of that which does exist physically or ontologically.

[Skepdick]

Does everything need to be made explicit for you?

Yes!

Then accept eternal disappointment. All meaning is inherently implicit and cannot be made absolutely explicit.

Until you have specified the, "whatever," you have still not stated anything true or false in spite of Mr. Boole's misuse of the terms, "true," and, "false," to signify logical states. You've been taken in by the Pythagorean fallacy--numbers have no physical or ontological existence. They are only a method and only exist as concepts (in human minds) and only have meaning as descriptions of that which does exist physically or ontologically.

Can you be a little bit more explicit? What do you mean when you use the term "true" ?

[RCSaunders]

Can you be a little bit more explicit? What do you mean when you use the term "true" ?

Truth.

[Skepdick]

Truth.

That's a start, but it's not enough...

Can you be more explicit?

[RCSaunders]

Truth.

That's a start, but it's not enough...

Can you be more explicit?

You read the article?

[Skepdick]

You read the article?

I did indeed. It's not explicit enough.

Truth may be described as the attribute or quality of propositions that correctly describes reality or any aspect of it.

Truth is not something established by consensus, popular opinion, peer review, or polls. Truth is determine by only one thing, reality itself, and is identified by discovering what that reality is. There is no other kind of truth.

Based on the above I am very very confused.

The color of this sentence is red.
The color of this sentence is red.

How is reality going to determine which of the above descriptions is the "correct" one; and which is the "incorrect" one?
How is reality going to determine which of the below is true?

It is true that it is incorrect to describe this color as "red".
It is true that it is correct to describe this color as "red".
It is true that it is incorrect to describe this color as "red".
It is true that It is correct to describe this color as "red".

[Skepdick]

Do you mean 'infinitesimals'? FFS. How hard is it to just google these things???

Du yu meen u don laik me spelleng? So weard haw yu ken rid diz. If yo r korektin mi yu andarstod mi.

Because language contains oodles of redundancy and forward error correction. You fucking language Nazi.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_cor ... correction

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Do you mean 'infinitesimals'? FFS. How hard is it to just google these things???

Du yu meen u don laik me spelleng? So weard haw yu ken rid diz. If yo r korektin mi yu andarstod mi.

Because language contains oodles of redundancy and forward error correction. You fucking language Nazi.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_cor ... correction

You fucking moron. It makes your OP meaningless. I don't know why these dipshits indulge your crap.

[Skepdick]

You fucking moron. It makes your OP meaningless. I don't know why these dipshits indulge your crap.

Way to demonstrate you are too stupid to distinguish between meaning and spelling.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You fucking moron. It makes your OP meaningless. I don't know why these dipshits indulge your crap.

Way to demonstrate you are too stupid to distinguish between meaning and spelling.

I had to guess at the meaning, knowing what a fucking moron you are. Language is not about guessing meanings. Language is about being understood. The consequences of being misunderstood due to poor language skills are vast and cover every aspect of our lives. Go away and think about that for a bit.

[Skepdick]

I had to guess at the meaning, knowing what a fucking moron you are. Language is not about guessing meanings. Language is about being understood. The consequences of being misunderstood due to poor language skills are vast and cover every aspect of our lives. Go away and think about that for a bit.

You are correcting my spelling. That means you understood my meaning just fine.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I had to guess at the meaning, knowing what a fucking moron you are. Language is not about guessing meanings. Language is about being understood. The consequences of being misunderstood due to poor language skills are vast and cover every aspect of our lives. Go away and think about that for a bit.

You are correcting my spelling. That means you understood my meaning just fine.

I had to ask, skepdickhead. And tell that to a lawyer, or anyone else who needs to be understood. Good luck dealing with any legal matters. You can just 'assume' that the other party knows what you mean 'Infentisimals' is pretty far removed from 'infinitesimals'. That's NOT a typo, fuckface.

[Skepdick]

I had to ask, skepdickhead. And tell that to a lawyer, or anyone else who needs to be understood. Good luck dealing with any legal matters. You can just 'assume' that the other party knows what you mean 'Infentisimals' is pretty far removed from 'infinitesimals'. That's NOT a typo, fuckface.

See! You understood exactly what I meant.

And heyyy... look... I spell it the way you like it some times.

infinitesimals

infinitesimals

But if you want me to treat you like a dumb computer that gets confused by typos I will...

[RCSaunders]

You read the article?

I did indeed. It's not explicit enough.

Truth may be described as the attribute or quality of propositions that correctly describes reality or any aspect of it.

Truth is not something established by consensus, popular opinion, peer review, or polls. Truth is determine by only one thing, reality itself, and is identified by discovering what that reality is. There is no other kind of truth.

Based on the above I am very very confused.

The color of this sentence is red.
The color of this sentence is red.

How is reality going to determine which of the above descriptions is the "correct" one; and which is the "incorrect" one?
How is reality going to determine which of the below is true?

It is true that it is incorrect to describe this color as "red".
It is true that it is correct to describe this color as "red".
It is true that it is incorrect to describe this color as "red".
It is true that It is correct to describe this color as "red".

I have no idea why you are confused. Some things have attributes that transmit, reflect, or emit light which has a specific appearance to observers which are referred to as color. How any individual experiences those colors is irrelevant so long as the colors are identified by the same concept. If the color being transmitted, reflected, or emitted is one someone identifies by the concept blue, for example, it is that color and no other which would be identified by different concepts.

Whether or not a statement identifying that color is true, or not, is determined by the actual color transmitted, reflected, or emitted being correctly identified by the color concept. If the actual color is blue, only a statement, "that color is blue," would be true, while any proposition that asserted, "that color is ... [any other color except blue] would not be true.

Your examples are meaningless, unless your are intentionally evading the truth. I have no idea what concept you use to identify any specific color, but you either use the same concept to identify different colors (as you did in your first example) which makes your concepts useless, or have no specific concepts to identify any colors.

I have no idea what the point of your second set of examples is. If you are referring to the colors of the fonts used to print those sentences, your identification of the colors is both unique and useless. Unless you suffer from some form of color blindness, I doubt you would try to explain to the judge, the red light you failed to stop for was really blue. You know you would not get away with it. Why are you trying to get away with it here?