quentron.com

[sarkeizen]

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

I love this answer.  Remember the question at hand is "Why don't I use your standard of evidence?".   Profitis has already admitted that she is unable to meet my standard of evidence.  I've stated that her belief that my ability to prove or disprove some things has no significant effect on their probability of being true.  For example I am probably unable to prove the Reimann Hypothesis.  Does that make it untrue?  Profitis would apparently say "yes" but that would of course be an exceptionally stupid thing.  As I am also unable to prove it's inverse.  Which would according to Profitis reasoning make it's inverse untrue.   However since the Reimann hypothesis must be either be true or it's inverse must be true.  Then the Profitis system of reasoning can not possibly be correct.

Profitis claims her belief requires no math.  However she is clearly attempting to add probabilities.  She also apparently was never taught how.  Do you think profitis can guess why 100 combinations may not add up to a significant shift in likelihood?  My bet is "no".

Profitis will now prove me right.

[profitis]

Your using it by not using it man.you see what I mean,you yet again delayed a direct address and counterattack to the statement.it is now a statement hanging in the balance for errr a couple months now?hanging there unchallenged.its the hanging that increases probability mr sarkeizen.the hanging that beckons urgency dudet.makes it more real with each passing second.reiman hypothesis has nothing to do with a hundred different combination of gas electrodes shoved in electrolyte so its irrelevent here.a bad example @sarkeizen.probability favours the statement being more true with each passing second of your delayed counterattack mr sarkeizen.the first half of the statement is ESTABLISHED PHYSICS ya'll so where is your ESTABLISHED COUNTERATTACK?

[MarkE]

You just proved that Sarkeizen's prediction was correct.

[sarkeizen]

Your using it by not using it man.

As I said you proved me right.  You have no idea why your "100 combinations" would have no significantly better odds than one.

Come back when you can answer that question.

[profitis]

No I just proved that sarkeizen is dancing around my statement and not on it @mark E