quentron.com

[profitis]

Its two seperate states @markE.one in contact.one seperate.I'm saying when seperate neutrality is favoured.when in contact charged is favoured.unless you can disprove this using textbooks.

[sarkeizen]

My formal argument is that you won't be able to give a damning reason for nonprofitable irreversability in that spillover diagram other than declaring 2lot inviolable @sarkeizen.

Again this is not a formal argument for a violation of 2LOT.  It's also an argument from ignorance.

Keep on hiding your formal argument.  It's the only way to spare yourself the shame.

[profitis]

Its not an argument from ignorance @sarkeizen because there's only one option: to show non-profitable irreversability.showing that for ANY other textbook scenario is easy.why not this one?

[sarkeizen]

Its not an argument from ignorance @sarkeizen

Actually it is.  Making the truth or falsehood of an objective fact (2LOT has or has not been violated) dependent on a persons ability to determine something.  Is pretty much the definition of an argument from ignorance.  Look it up on any website about the informal fallacies.

Again if there's a formal argument for showing that 2LOT can be violated from assumptions contained in ordinary textbooks.  I will destroy it (show it to be false, show that it does not force it's conclusion, etc).  So the only thing keeping your argument from being destroyed is that you are keeping it secret.

[profitis]

What secrets @sarkeizen?? The diagram is clearly visible straight from google.nothing to hide here. now smash my claim of profitable reversability.or do you want another 50year karpen non-consensus on your hands