quentron.com

[sarkeizen]

no mr sarkeizen..you are to be badly,badly dissapointed if you think that some made up and generally poorly defined statement is irrelevant to the  True Profitis Statement..

Fun We can prove you wrong again:
The True Profitis Statement is true IFF a formal logical argument reaches the conclusion "ordinary textbooks necessitate the existence of and ability to build a battery which would power an ipod-like device eternally and continually".  Clearly this requires ordinary textbooks.

By virtue of this,   any and every other statement you wish to make is either:

i) Not equivalent to the  True Profitis Statement (and therefore irrelevant) or...
ii) Unsupported (because the True Profitis Statement is unsupported because there is no ordinary textbook cite)

If you have a problem with this, then again I'm more than happy to give you a tutorial and walk you through it.  It might be good for you.  You probably think you have some valid objection but if you were to discuss it you would see that you are just very, very, very stupid.

[TinselKoala]

Very persistent, though... that's got to count for something, right?

[sarkeizen]

Very persistent, though... that's got to count for something, right?

Perhaps in the same way banging ones head against a wall counts towards a contusion.

[profitis]

lol talk shit @sarkeizen.you can prove and have proved exactly zilch thusfar.even the karpen blueprint fits perfectly into my textbook statement and thus into textbooks lol.you dont think gold and platinum have 2 different oxygen overpotentials?you have to show us how their equilibrium over/underpotentials dont fuck the 2nd law straight in the ass by necessary cycling of gas.how the fuck are you going to do this?? A very difficult task lies ahead for you my friend because if you dont collapse my statement now then people will start to believe my ipod lingotrash..and we dont want that..

[sarkeizen]

you can prove and have proved exactly zilch thusfar.

Can you point to a lemma in my proof that does not force the next step?  Nope. So my proof stands. Which means I've proved at least one thing.  That you have moved the discussion exactly nowhere from where it started four months ago.  It's kind of an achievement really.  To post so much and be able to say so incredibly close to nothing at all.

people will start to believe my

Sorry, not interested.  Everyone in the world could believe you or start believing you or start believing you directly as a result of my action or inaction and it wouldn't bother me.  That's one of the benefits of using logic.  It doesn't matter what people believe, accepting the True Profitis Statement would still be the irrational thing to do.

Reason can be an end unto itself and I'm content with having bested you.  No matter how much you're in denial about it.