Re: Ritz ballistic emission theory material

Hexenmeister a écrit :
"YBM" <ybmess@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:4440d0bf$0$30088$636a55ce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
....
| so it is not true that ( A xor B ) => (A or B) ?


No, it is not true.
(0 xor 0) =1 does not imply (0 or 0) = 1 because it doesn't.

In case you didn't notice, shithead, 0 does not equal 1.

In case you didn't notice, genious, => is not <=>, just like
'included in' is not = for sets, and < is not = for-numbers.

Even worse, are you pretending that (False xor False) is True ??

What's really funny with you, dumby, is that one cannot never
assume any top level for you ignorance or stupidity, you always
figure out how to be worse...

http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Stuff/AxorB.gif
Even the dumbest idiot can see blue does not imply white, but
you are fucking dumber than dumb.

irrelevant and stupid comment : you've been caught as an
ignorant of elementary logic and/or an hypocrite

p => q means that in the diagram the set for p is included
in the set for q (so that being a member of the first implies
being a member of the former). With your own eyes you should
be able to figure out that the blue set at the top is included in
the blue set at the bottom.

Let's have a look to you "counter example" :

False xor False is False
False or False is False

False => False is True.

| Hence t'=-t+k is a solution, which is not of the form t+k

In case you didn't notice, dumb***, time does not run backwards.
C'mon, Your Basic Moron, show what I said was wrong.

irrelevant and stupid comment : you've been caught s an
ignorant of elementary analysis and/or an hypocrite

Your statement was trivialy false, adding misunderstanding
and confusion between the minus sign and so-called "backward
travel in time" is even worse.

.

Loading