quentron.com

[profitis]

@sarkeizen Its not an argument when somebody uses logic or common sense to support reality and then gets poked about not providing the four thousand citations,references,cross-pre-examinations and post-cross-examinations to support it.thats just being silly.an analogy discussion would be : claimant: 'air is see-through',  sarkeizen:'show the reference to back up that statement',  claimant:'ok i,l show a reference',  sarkeizen,'not good enough show a quote',  claimant,'ok i,l show a quote',  sarkeizen,'not good enough show a cite'  claimant,'please stop im exhausted',  sarkeizen,'prove it'.  claimant,'please sir im tired'.  sarkeizen,'show your method of making the claim of tiredness'. So must you seriously realy require the full blown citation to the statement,'batteries run until equilibrium'?.

[sarkeizen]

Its not an argument when somebody uses logic or common sense to support reality

So far you haven't shown much logic or common sense.  Definitely zero logic.

and then gets poked about not providing the four thousand citations,references,cross-pre-examinations and post-cross-examinations to support

Again, slippery slope fallacy.  So far you were asked for exactly ONE cite.  Furthermore it is one cite that you seem to say is easy to produce and of course you promised you would provide.

thats just being silly.an analogy discussion would be

Wrong.    As I illustrate below...

obstructionist asshole claimant: 'air is see-through'

Except that you might argue that this is self-evident - at least to someone who can see.  However you can not argue the same thing about your claim that: "All textbooks predict that you can build a device that can run an ipod forever".  Evidence suggests that quite a number of engineers and physicists do not consider at least my reading of that statement as self-evident.  So this never really happened

obstructionist asshole claimant:'ok i,l show a reference'

Isn't a reference something that REFERS to an object or book?  Quoting something without any clear indication is actually not a reference.  So this part never happened either.  Also considering that your claim was: "All textbooks show..." it's a little foolish to pretend that such a thesis can be supported without referencing a textbook.

obstructionist asshole claimant:'ok i,l show a quote'

Except that you were never asked for a quote.   You have, since the beginning been asked for a cite.   So again this part didn't happen either.

obstructionist asshole claimant:'please stop im exhausted'

Dude if you don't want to talk, don't talk.  Nobody is forcing you to be an obstructionist asshole and post here.  All I've pointed out that you spend absolutely enormous amounts of time being an obstructionist asshole and zero time providing a cite

So it seems you are being deceptive (Again!) in some way.  Either you could easily provide the cite and won't for some reason you have not disclosed OR the cite is not easy to get.

So must you seriously realy require the full blown citation

ROFL. ROFL. ROFL.  All this drama, over something that takes under 5 minutes.   Clearly less time than you've spend avoiding the question.  To wit:

Let H be a subspace of a finite-dimensional vector space V.  Any linearly independent set in H can be expanded, if necessary to a basis H.  Also, H is finite-dimensional and dim H <= dim V

I looked up the above and typed it out in 2 minutes.  Now get off your lazy ass.

[profitis]

@sarkeizen  claimant:'use the textbook to help you build a forever battery.'  sarkeizen:'but i dont know how'  claimant:'find a friend'  sarkeizen:'i got no friends'  claimant:'go make friends'  sarkeizen:'no i want a cite lazybones,*blush*'  claimant;'you obstructionist asswipe'

[sarkeizen]

enormous obstructionist asshole claimant:'use the textbook to help you build a forever battery.'

My response to this stupid argument of yours was, time and time again that you said:

no need to observe.its written and predicted in  textbooks

If I don't need to observe then clearly I don't need to build.  So all I need are the textbook cites, now I would understand some reluctance if they were impossible books to find but again you said...

all and every textbook on electrochemistry

That's what YOU said.  Were you wrong?  Can you say: "I Profitis the obstructionist asshole am wrong.  Clearly the textbooks don't predict this and/or the textbooks are exceptionally difficult to get and I have been a trolling obstructionist because I am wrong."

oh and...

Two statements s1, s2 are said to be logically equivallent, and we write s1 <-> s2, when the statement s1 is true (respectively, false) fi and only if the statement s2 is true (respectively false)

That took me 2 minutes you lazy trolling ass.

[profitis]

@ sarkeizen claimant:'chek it says cells run until equilibrium electrochem.cwru.edu/ed/dict.htm';  sarkeizen,'dont talk crap'  claimant,'yes the work function of a piece of gold at potential depth(a) is different from the work function of a piece of gold at potential depth(b) quasi-temporarily its a quenco.a working quenco.a working f*@?ing quenco.  sarkeizen,'talk shit,seriously?'  claimant,'well the work function is dependant on the potential isnt it?'  sarkeizen,'no shit shirlock (-:,you genius,*blush*'