Re: A summary of my position so far.

Daryl McCullough wrote:
Mitch Harris says...

I thought it might have been an automatic text scrambler that somehow
preserves grammar (or lack thereof) or something like dissociated-
press.

Here is a web application (Travesty Generator) that takes a fragment
of text and generates a new paragraph with the same statistical
properties as the input (frequencies of characters, pairs of characters,
etc.)

http://www.eskimo.com/~rstarr/poormfa/travesty.html

Running John's original post through this generator produces
the following text (order 9; the higher the order, the more
similar the output is to the input).

---Travesty of John Jones:---
I have indicated in previous posts that digits and symbols, as numbers, are not properties but instead refer to the ontology of numbers that are independently from a plurality of flowers as a new element. So created, and like the latter. For, regarding the former, we note that there is no universal framework in which they find themselves. What distinguishable from its properties but instead refer to stand-alone numbers, are not also of those found in a calculus), or whether these are not necessarily odd.
-------

To be fair, here is an order-7 travesty of a post of mine:

---Travesty of Daryl McCullough---
What does "wrong" even mean here? You believe that they are inconsistent, but that's to be expected, since infinite sets. You can't you figure that they prove a contradiction using orthodox mathematics is inconsistent, you are just wrong. You agree with that, right? Your methods of reasoning is inconsistent when applied to actually infinite sets. You can't you take the next step: If your methods of reasoning are inconsistent, but that there are two approach taken by orthodox mathematics is inconsistent.
------

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY


Hey Daryl. I think there's a "huge tits" spam post in sci.logic that you might want to comment on, mathmatically of course.
.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast