quentron.com

[profitis]

@sarkeizen: you don't have knowledge in the field and your telling me that my statement is informal? Start googlin mr sarkeizen

[sarkeizen]

@sarkeizen: you don't have knowledge in the field and your telling me that my statement is informal?

I am something of an expert in the field of proofs and formal arguments.  Enough to know this is probably smokescreen to disguise that you don't know what I'm talking about.   So here's a hint.  Outline your argument in a series of steps like so:

i) step 1
ii) step 2
iii) step 3

Then you simply assert that it is impossible for step 1, not to imply step 2, and it is likewise impossible for step 2 not to imply step iii) and so on.    At that point you provide a cite for your i) and then you will have, if you are correct about the formality and the assumption in i) a formal true argument.

Then you can just sit back and watch as I kick you in the nuts.

[profitis]

Oh so your going to kick me in the nuts only when I provide the argument in the way that you want me to provide the argument mr sarkeizen?

[sarkeizen]

Oh so your going to kick me in the nuts only when I provide the argument in the way that you want me to provide the argument mr sarkeizen?

What I described for you in my last post *is* a formal argument. You said you could/had provided one.  Do you now realize that you haven't/can't?

Lie less profitis.

[profitis]

Oh so you are only going to kick me in the nuts when I provide a 'formal' argument mr sarkeizen.but you cant when I provide an 'informal' one.very strange