John Cuthber

My point is that it is perfectly possible, and acceptable, to create a question that doesn't look like one until you get to the end. If you are writing a speech for someone it's a bad style choice, but it's still technically correct. That seems to me to be at odds with what Strange said

Holy S***! it turns pout that we are not even in the same league...

I misunderstood this? "At least in English you often know if if it is a question from near the beginning of the sentence " You meant something else? "In some languages you don't know until the end of the sentence. " Like English, for example?

I think part of the absurdity would work better with this, than with a full stop. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpunct because inverting it leaves it the same. The inverted full stop does, it seems (sort of)exist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot_(diacritic)#Overdot

Perhaps I can help here. The verse is the one immediately after the one you referred to. It's the one that says "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." That's a pretty clear statement that the old laws- the OT laws- carry on. Now, the interesting question is how did you miss that (or were you just hoping that everyone else would miss it)?

You really know at the start that it's going to be a question? I understand (from reading Asterix books as a kid) that the Spanish have got this problem sorted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_question_and_exclamation_marks ..my dad learned taught me...

He who laughs last didn't get it. Anyway, if you banned the words, how would historians refer to - for example- the General Strike? We still need the word for smallpox (and hopefully one day polio) - even if we only use it to describe past success. And as an exercise for the grammar nuts, should that have been "We still need the words for smallpox (and hopefully one day polio) - even if we only use them to describe past successes."?

You resurrected a year old thread to say something which doesn't parse in English. Did you think that would help?

Sensei. You seem to think that the reaction with Al will be instant- it isn't., especially if you use alcohol as the solvent, rather than water. On the other hand, you also seem to think that destroying the NaOH by reaction with Al won't matter when you try to electrolyse the molten alkali. It probably would, Electrolysis of sodium aluminate / hydroxide mixtures would waste power making aluminium which would reduce the hydroxide to hydrogen (though I suspect that would happen without the Al) hence the requirement to remove it. I'm not sure what you mean by the $1000 comment, could you explain ti?

Incidentally, this is not inorganic chemistry. Sensei; how do you pass a gas through another gas? "Even if he would pass chlorine through methane, "

You would get an unholy mess of different things.

Maybe it will remind us why we don't have referenda very often.

There must be a "Cross product" joke there somewhere.

Generally, yes. There is a complication- you would get a solution of zinc or cadmium in mercury if you had an excess of the less reactive metal. If you didn't have an excess of the Zn or Cd you would get some Hg(I) sulphate.

The UK an US are having a competition about this. At the moment (post brexit vote) the UK is in the lead. But The Americans have a Trump card. (It's OK, I will get my coat) Incidentally, the UK's recent "psychoactive substances bill" is a pretty solid contender too. A strict interpretation of it would ban teaching chemistry, enjoying yourself (and most absurdly of all) the bill itself. That takes a special kind of stupid.

OK, I thought about it. If we did no wrong we wouldn't need to improve. So why make a shoddy product (like us) in the first place.

word salad

And so the Bible tells us that Hitler, Goebbels and Himmler were telling the truth about the Jews. Not if you are being biblical about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_(time) tells us "A moment (momentum) was a medieval unit of time. The movement of a shadow on a sundial covered 40 moments in a solar hour." and you have said elsewher that sundials are the hip and happening thing (or something like that). You seem prepared to answer- but the answer you give is wrong- as the Bible bashers' answer to this question usually is. The Christian faith takes the Gospels as the Gospel truth. And it's in the gospel that we find Christ making it abundantly clear that He has not come to condemn the scriptures. Matthew 5:18: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" Which brings either you or Matthew into the problem of bearing false witness. I don't care which of you is wrong, but one of you must be. Clearly bollocks. Atheism was, until recently a rare thing. Up till, say the middle of the 20th century nearly all scientists in the Western world were Christians. And then we learned better. We learned, for example, that the Bible says things that are simply not true. And this is the third time I have pointed that out to you.

OK so it's a motive, but is isn't the motive of a person or group. Is it the motive of an animal? The reason I ask is that inanimate things don't have motives and you are rapidly running out of options. Or you could save us all time by admitting that you are talking nonsense- and that's why you contradicted yourself. Anyway, you seem to have ignored my point that your shadow won't behave in the same way as mine- so yours must be wrong (because mine is- so you tell me- perfect). Or is that just another example of how little sense you make.

Buy some tide tables. They tell you that we know, in advance, where the moon will be.

When you make up your mind... In the mean time, since your shadow doesn't tell the same times as mine, may I remind you that mine is the perfect one- and yours is wrong. It's also daft to complain that clocks sometmes break down, then advocate sundials that fail every night

I'm afraid I haven't been keeping up with this thread, but I wondered if anyone had posted this Australian advert- I understand the American networks won't broadcast it in the land of the free. http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/politics/aussies-slam-trump-so-hard-in-this-hysterical-ad-it-was-banned-in-the-us-video/

Actually, your first reply "It's not practically possible unless you have an extremely large amount of time to wait for the program to complete. " suggests that it is possible; which is wrong. This " Of course, our whole argument has nothing to do with the OP's question, " Is absurd. You might have been trying ti hijack the thread, but I wasn't. My view position was that of trying to explain why your answer to the question was misleading. To suddenly claim that we were discussing Spanish fishing rights or something is begging the question. "My current claim is that it may be possible in the future depending on whether or not you can build things that are smaller than atoms (MUCH smaller), which we now obviously can't do." Or, as I described it "magic that we don't have yet".

Incidentally, synapses aren't strictly binary in the way that logic gates are, so, at best , the calculation will lead to a very approximate model of reality. So, you are suggesting the OP uses "magic that we don't have yet". I can't express how pleased I imagine they will be with that. (and you may have noticed- but conveniently ignored the fact that I initially stated the known universe.) The point remains; the OP is asking someone to count to 2^1100. The known universe isn't big enough to do that in any way that we know about. (And that's what makes the number of particles in the known universe relevant to the problem.- we have to solve it in the known universe). If you could have shown us that it's reasonable to see how we could count to 10^82, that would be interesting- but it still doesn't get us to 2^1100 or anything remotely close. And your claim that we can count to 10^82, which might as well say "The unicorns will help us" isn't much good from the OP's point of view is it?