quentron.com

[profitis]

Its not stupid if you look into it @sarkeizen.for example the suspected 2lot violator,the original karpen cell blueprint fits the bill of that statement very cosily i.e.gold and platinum with their different oxygen potentials giving current and power in a predictably repetitive manner.

[sarkeizen]

Its not stupid if you look into it.

I'm saying your test for evidence can't significantly shift the probability that you are correct.
Clearly any test which does not shift the likelihood is stupid.   Sorry that's just the way it is.

QED

[profitis]

its a broad-based statement thus your inability or ability to textbook-bash it increases or decreases probability dramaticaly. there's nothing about the statement that contradicts established physics exept the part about a 2lot violation so either you should be able to give a broad-based established textbook counterexplanation or not.if not,then the 2nd half of the statement begins to look shiny.its not a particle collider we're dealing with here @sarkeizen.its a broad class of battery.

[sarkeizen]

your inability or ability to textbook-bash it increases or decreases probability dramaticaly.

Sadly your math is worse than Phillips.   How do you get so terrible at it?  Do you actually have to spend time taking courses that un-teach probability theory?  Or is it just a successive series of sharp blows to the head?

Please provide the calculations to prove your point.  You of course can't but it will be fun to see what dodge you come up with.

[profitis]

There's no math required.just plain logic.if I point to one item and declare it a 2lot violation people might laugh,a handful might take it serious.if I point to over 100 different combinaton of items and declare them a 2lot violation,you'd better be damn well prepared to offer a counterexplanation otherwise your going to trip people up @sarkeizen.the statements seriousness is proportional to its broadness in this case.