dudeguy3301

10 ms·

1.
by dudeguy3301 4y ago
sure, what was written was sensible but has no bearing on the proof. speculation isn't critical thinking, as adastra22 says, be careful to what you are responding to. my point is the lack of rigor and understanding because the proof is
2.
by dudeguy3301 4y ago
still doesn't sound like you have ever read the proof, nor about it. so aren't you engaged in this discussion strictly by speculation? logical fallacy? just because you have some point to make has no bearing on the work you are ad
3.
by dudeguy3301 4y ago
wait, so you are casually dismissing Gödel's work as a logical "gotcha"? don't premise opinions about complex proofs on other peoples woefully impoverished and misrepresented explanations of said proofs that is disrespec
4.
by dudeguy3301 4y ago
also, that his proof exists within an axiomatic system but IS ONE of its provable statements, is wildly crazy genius weird 'serendipitous' math...?! shows that at least for the boundary beyond the provably meaningful, we can still
5.
by dudeguy3301 4y ago
lol, some people just 'think' different, like the old macintosh adds...
6.
by dudeguy3301 4y ago
sorry, i was implying that when another company or group of people do their own version of censoring. the creators agree with brodcast tv laws and parameters to edit down their work because they want it to be available in that form. vidange
7.
by dudeguy3301 4y ago
so, censoring a film is editing the intended form. this seems damaging to creators. also, if a movie has a bunch of sex and violence that gets censored out, what remains is still the intended context for the sex and violence, so why would a
8.
by dudeguy3301 4y ago
how did this article miss heilung's version?!?!
9.
by dudeguy3301 4y ago
what!?!? thinking thoughts to a point of clarity so that one has achieved a cohesion and clarity of meaning comes well before writing. writing allows for the recordation of thoughts, so that we may revisit older thoughts with newer thinking
10.
by dudeguy3301 4y ago
also, think the french started this. a name for the animal in the field, a different name for the animal on your plate.
11.
by dudeguy3301 4y ago
yesyes, both good responses. i suppose i was focusing on a type of art prevalent in classism. many types of art have existed for all peoples through out history. we call cave paintings 'art' but did those peoples who painted them
12.
by dudeguy3301 4y ago
lets not forget not too long ago art was a available only to the rich. the social elements were confined to the whim and contingency of the lords, aristocratics and nobles who deemed art to be so. as we may glean from walter benjamin, the r