quentron.com

[MarkE]

Have you ever been to a supermarket?

[profitis]

that doesnt help us @mark E.im telling you about concentration cells and you want to give a psychology lecture? 

[sarkeizen]

attack my last vehemently destructive statement

Either it's equivalent to the True profitis statement or it is not. 

If it is, then it's powerless because it's unsupported.
If it isn't, it's irrelevant.

Useless or irrelevant.  Let me know which one you pick.

[profitis]

you clearly dont understand anything ive said @sarkeizen. my 1st statement is a consequence of my last statement which is self-supported.self-supported.you can only destroy my last statement by showing how 2 different overpotential gas electrodes cant thermodynamicly re-cycle spontaneously.

[sarkeizen]

you clearly dont understand anything ive said

I understand what you're saying.  You're simply incorrect.

So we will represent the True Profitis Statement as T and any other statement as M (for moronic)
So what do we know about T?  It's true IFF (if and only if) a formal argument is presented and at least one cite from an ordinary textbook.  We will call this lemma (1).

my 1st statement is a consequence of my last statement

In logic we would write that as: M -> T (or M implies T) we can call that (2).  However because of (1) we know that T is only true if there's a formal logical argument and an ordinary textbook cite.  So unless M contains both of those then M can not imply T.

which is self-supported .self-supported.

If by that you mean M is true.  Then you have a problem because if M is true it means T is true by virtue of (2).  However T can only be true by formal argument and citing ordinary textbooks.  At no point have you provided a formal logical argument for M and not  only have you provided no ordinary textbook cites BUT you specifically stated that M can't be demonstrated with ordinary textbooks.

So you are in contradiction.  The statements M is true and M->T are mutually exclusive the way you have defined them.

You are simply wrong here.  I wonder why you find that so hard to believe?