quentron.com

[profitis]

@sarkeizen..i have to disagree with you.if we have to prove that wikipedia is correct in its assumptions then it becomes a formal argument.

[sarkeizen]

@sarkeizen..i have to disagree with you.

Only because you are one of the biggest logical morons (or trolls) I have ever met.  People who live in bus shelters, who put "mindless gibbering" on their list of skills on their CV have a better grasp of logic than you do.

if we have to prove that wikipedia is correct in its assumptions then it becomes a formal argument.

You have to first learn to construct a sentence that makes sense.  That one doesn't.

[orbut 3000]

The Quentron.com website's new simplified design seems to inspire all kinds of speculation. Some people think this is just another case of PJHs spontaneous emotional combustions we have seen come and go in recent years, while others speculate that this could very well be the result of patent attorney's advice following the influx of a significant investment.


Nobody except PJH knows for sure, but something seems to be going on behind the scenes, whatever it is. 

[profitis]

Lol @sarkeizen.wheres your demand for a promised citation gone to? That was your strongpoint you should stick to it but stooping to tantrums is a new lowpoint for you. dissappointing man.wikipaedia,s mathematical work function formula is correct whichever way you want to look at it.it can be put to the test.

[sarkeizen]

Lol @sarkeizen.wheres your demand for a promised citation gone to?

Not every post needs to remind you  that you have failed, failed, failed in this respect. :-D

That was your strongpoint you should stick to it but stooping to tantrums is a new lowpoint for you.

What tantrum?  I was just being descriptive.  You really show zero understanding of how to formulate an argument...deliberately or otherwise.  I've said things like this before, many times.

wikipaedia,s mathematical work function formula is correct whichever way you want to look at it.it can be put to the test.

Yawn.  If you have a cite from a textbook, and a FORMAL LOGICAL ARGUMENT - that is, a series of statements where each one is FORCED (which means there is no possible other conclusion) by the prior one. That leads inexorably to your conclusion - that someone can construct a device that can run an ipod forever.  Then I for one would love to see it posted here...

However, we both know you don't have that, or anything like that...