JaKiri

Or 'close enough to' at least

He's right! Numbers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chain rules! Go, make a numberistic society based on that german masterwork, Das Ordinal!

I like these questions, but that's an easier example of the variety :| IMO opinion anyway. <RadicalEdward>

I think those are true because that's how hyperbolic functions are defined.

I'd say that creatures that can't possibly exist ('impossible') aren't going to exist.

'You can't compare these two things, because you have to specify a medium for this one, and obviously this one where I specify a medium is different because it doesn't need a medium despite me having to specify one.'

Well, we would use this new fangled mathematics thing to derive the existance of black holes from otherwise empirically proven theories, but then you don't hold with that kind of thing, do you?

'Information sink'

I skipped a year at my prep school. Still didn't do any work though. And when my mother became head of maths in the final year I was there (she has mathematics and geography degrees) having previously been heads of history and geography, I had to tell her what to teach because she had forgotten it all.

Bloody Eton

I'm OK You're a Drone.

That's not really science related though; also The Island of the Day Before.

In other words, what you're saying is that if it's axiomic relative to an observer, then it's axiomic relative to an observer? You're still biggin it up with da truisms bro.

What do you think I do with my time?

It depends what kind of government in both cases. Obviously, we can't have a pure democracy where everyone makes every decision, and the best form of government remains a benign dictatorship.

This forum is more beboptastic. WELSH CORGI.

Windows XP Pro dual booted with Red Hat is where it's at

Greene's The Elegant Universe.

If you can prove an axiom to be true, then it's not an axiom, is it?

Taking your average accellerator as an example, 'hit and hope'.

When the nouns are nominative. IE when they're the subject of the verb, or the conjunction (I think that's the term) (ie object) of the verb 'to be'. eg. 'Lisa and I went to the play, the play was seen by Lisa and me.' 'It is I!'

If you mean that there can be nothing without axioms, then that's a pretty pointless post. If you mean that nothing can be absolutely true with the presence of axioms, then you're ignoring mathematics.

Bearing in mind of course the time zone difference, both for posters and non-NA guests.

I be thinking the same thing man.

That's invalid.