quentron.com

[sarkeizen]

why do we have to finish the first point first?

So you admit these are two different points?  Great. 

to the 2nd point,which is in support of the 1st point anyway so technicly we,re still busy with the 1st point

What?  Is it the same point or a different point?  Figure that out and get back to me.
 
If it's the same point, then it's unnecessary.  If it's a different point then it's irrelevant.  Right?

[profitis]

@sarkeizen no theyre all one point,divided into two parts but i like to call the 2nd part 'point 2' silly.otherwise how would we get a distinction between one-half point and another one-half point duh...and 2 one-half points arent unnecesary because 2 halves make a whole duh.. Makes sense now?

[sarkeizen]

@sarkeizen no theyre all one point

So if you can show that textbooks necessitate the existence of and ability to build eternal batteries.  Are you saying that information theory can still restrict you from building an eternal battery (provided it's a MD device)?

If yes, then they are not the same point but it also undermines your point about textbooks.  Since they can say "You can build this" but you really can't.
If no, then the second point is unnecessary.

Right?

[profitis]

@sarkeizen i like that thought.but since your waiting for your library book we have NO CHOICE but to create a 2-half points,both which de-necessitate the other half-point.in other words if you can prove to us that your battery doesnt work forever we wont need point 1.although point 1 wil always stil exist and be ready for us,after you get your library book to varify for us its validity.   

[sarkeizen]

which de-necessitate

In other words if you demonstrate that textbooks do necessitate the existence and ability to build batteries which are eternal.  That can still very easily be wrong.  Right?