Has anyone had this kind of upbringing?

[Aurelian]

Ninwa, I love you.

[TrueTears]

lol u STILL avoid answering me becoz u know ur wrong lol pls answer me

all i care about is how you are wrong about making this statement about me:

That generalisation still doesn't make sense.

When i didnt even make any generalisations rofl, i just find a counter example to show that

But eventually, we must concede that natural talent/passion+ practise > practise and expressionless Chinese fingers.

In general, false.

is indeed false in general.

so yea... can you please please please show which imaginary "generalisation" i made didnt make any sense?

Ok. You say xx in general is false. I interpret that (as most people would) as meaning you are generalizing xx is false. Saying xx is false generally (in normal speak) entails xy to be true by necessity. Xy is not true. Therefore xx cannot true. Yes I know (as I pointed out previously) that there is a bit of a clash of definition, and that your in general is a different, less common usage if the term, hence the confusion. Can you accept that under my set of rules, I am right, now?

Edit: apologies for typos, typing usig iPhone on bed zzz >>

no i dont care about what you think? coz i never asked for your opinion nor do i care about your set of 'rules'.

i am just saying you saying "my (imaginary) generalisation doesnt make sense" doesnt make sense to YOU because you didnt have the knowledge to interpret it my logical way, not because it doesnt make sense to everyone.

im sure if /0, charlieW and countless others would read it and it would make perfect sense. so yeah if something didnt make sense to you next time, please dont accuse my post of not making sense

[TrueTears]

never did i say anything in general.

i said practise + talent > practise + no talent in general is FALSE i never said the converse holds did i? and i proved that practise + talent > practise + no talent is FALSE in GENERAL by finding a counterexample, a valid method of proof according to discrete mathematics logic. I never went on to prove that practise + no talent > practise + talent in general.

its false in general because we can find a counter example

But eventually, we must concede that natural talent/passion+ practise > practise and expressionless Chinese fingers.

In general, false.

Also, using the mathematical rather than generally-understood meaning of a term in a debate about a non-mathematics-related topic is, frankly, quite silly, IMO.

sorry i guess you didnt read the wiki article, i never said it was mathematical, its logic.

im sorry nina but you need to touch up on your logics my statement of saying iffets statement is false in general is 100% correct under common logic, and there is NO way you can show i am wrong.

[ninwa]

i am just saying you saying "my (imaginary) generalisation doesnt make sense" doesnt make sense to YOU because you didnt have the knowledge to interpret it my logical way, not because it doesnt make sense to everyone.

im sure if /0, charlieW and countless others would read it and it would make perfect sense. so yeah if something didnt make sense to you next time, please dont accuse my post of not making sense

Ahem. Imaginary?

[Aurelian]

sorry i guess you didnt read the wiki article, i never said it was mathematical, its logic.

You don't seem to know much about logic... There are a number of types of logic; syllogistic logic, predicate logic, propositional logic, philosophical logic, modal logic


oh and... mathematical logic. :3

[ninwa]

sorry i guess you didnt read the wiki article, i never said it was mathematical, its logic.

Um... im sorry but you really dont get it do you? cmon it's easy maths...

We can do this all day, but it's kind of pointless.

[TrueTears]

yes imaginary because like EZ said, i said "in general, false" then I moved on to show its "in general, false" by using a counter example, according to the logic stated in the wiki article, i am 100% correct.

so EZ's comment about my post not making sense was wrong because he didnt have enough knowledge to know it would make sense, not because my comment doesnt make sense. so pls dont accuse me of not making sense


haha yeah we can do this all day because there's no way any of the statements i made were wrong lol, so next time pls dont accuse my "generalisations" doesnt make sense when it does.


yup i used the word "in general" but are the statements i used "in general" wrong? im sorry but you cant prove im wrong in any way. sorry for dissapointing you nina maybe next time you can prove me wrong.

[ninwa]

You state that your generalisations are "imaginary" because you never made them. I have proven to you that several times, you used the words "in general".

You also state that you never meant it in the mathematical sense (which I have also disproven, but whatever).

Therefore, in the generally understood sense, when you say "in general", you are necessarily making a generalisation.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand on your part. Your denying everything even in the face of clear-cut evidence to the contrary just makes you look silly.

Also, this is getting way off topic and isn't even interesting. Locked.