|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Oct 20th, 2005 06:19 AM | ||
| Jonathan Clement | Now, it's my house... | |
| Oct 17th, 2005 05:18 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
Quote:
Wow. |
|
| Oct 17th, 2005 04:36 PM | ||
| Wigwam | maybe he's a Gideon too. | |
| Oct 17th, 2005 08:50 AM | ||
| AngPur |
Quote:
|
|
| Oct 16th, 2005 09:05 PM | ||
| El Blanco |
Quote:
|
|
| Oct 16th, 2005 06:12 PM | ||
| Rongi |
 This man is going to save us all!! |
|
| Oct 16th, 2005 11:54 AM | ||
| Immortal Goat | Mormons are the exact opposite of "independent". | |
| Oct 16th, 2005 03:16 AM | ||
| Jonathan Clement | I think I AM mormon, actually. I'm independant in my believes, anyway. | |
| Oct 15th, 2005 11:28 PM | ||
| Wigwam |
sounds awfully mormon to me  way to make both Christians and athiests hate you. |
|
| Oct 14th, 2005 03:28 AM | ||
| Sethomas | Better get on the ball, then! | |
| Oct 14th, 2005 03:01 AM | ||
| Jonathan Clement | All I know is that I'll put a bullet through my head before I belive such a tale. | |
| Oct 13th, 2005 01:40 PM | ||
| Jeanette X |
Re: Accept Christ, or burn in hell! Quote:
Newsflash: There have been volumes and volumes written about this. There is nothing you can say about the issue that hasn't been said already by people who are more articulate, more intelligent, and better educated than you. |
|
| Oct 13th, 2005 12:28 PM | ||
| mburbank |
I'll tell you what, if I'm not goin' to hell out of this deal, I'm not playin' any more. OH YEAH! I SAID PLAYIN' WIFFOUT DE 'G'! |
|
| Oct 13th, 2005 05:33 AM | ||
| Marine |
Re: Accept Christ, or burn in hell! Quote:
|
|
| Oct 13th, 2005 01:53 AM | ||
| Marc Summers |
The correct proof would be proof by induction (ya, it's hard to do for tautologies) :o Statement: (-1)(x)<0 for all x>0 (for sanity's sake we'll just say x is also a whole number. Repeating decimals and proofs almost always do NOT mix  )Base case: x=1. (-1)(1)<0 goes to -1<0 I would believe this to be CORRECT :D Induction: If x is assumed to be true within the currently defined subset of x>0, x+1 must also be proven true (domino theory). So, making a blind assumption that the statement (-1)(x)<0 reducing to -x<0 is correct, then I have to show that the statement of (-1)(x+1)<0 is correct. This reduces to -x<1. Because values for x can only be positive integers, the statement -x<1 is correct. Because it's correct, it shows that for every x that is true, x+1 is also true. Here's what I did: it's called the domino theory. I had to prove that I knocked over the first domino (x=1) and prove that every domino knocks over the domino after it (prove for every x, x+1 is also true), which pretty much covers every possibility.  MATH POWER 
|
|
| Oct 13th, 2005 01:26 AM | ||
| Sethomas | It's actually a tautology. | |
| Oct 13th, 2005 12:55 AM | ||
| Big Papa Goat | How was that a proof? | |
| Oct 12th, 2005 10:05 PM | ||
| Rosenstern |
Quote:
Wow... that was pretty easy actually. Clement does need to get a life, though. |
|
| Oct 8th, 2005 12:43 PM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore | I think John is gonna be a great addition to the gang. | |
| Oct 8th, 2005 12:20 PM | ||
| kellychaos | If nothing else, Christ is surely a stickler for correct spelling. | |
| Oct 8th, 2005 12:00 PM | ||
| sadie | there's a thin line between courage and stupidity, and i believe jonathan has crossed it. | |
| Oct 8th, 2005 09:50 AM | ||
| Emu | There are logical reasons for believing in God's existence, but they don't necessarily apply to reality. | |
| Oct 8th, 2005 09:32 AM | ||
| Spectre X |
Quote:
Where is the logic in God existing? There is none. |
|
| Oct 8th, 2005 03:19 AM | ||
| AngPur | God exists. Belgium doesn't. | |
| Oct 8th, 2005 03:03 AM | ||
| Jonathan Clement | Yes he does. Just ask him. | |
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | ||
