This achievement should, I feel, be in no way sullied by the fact that the statement is trivially true ....... on account of trivia not actually occurring last night due to flooding. Sure you might also just as well say that we were beaten by every other team to play last night too. You might say that. But if that's the kind of 'glass half empty' defeatist attitude you're going to carry around with you in life like an albatross chained to your neck, well, you can just sod off home with your negative vibes and leave my blog in peace, OK?
In other news, google analytics is informing me that I have had no visitors at all from the 1st-5th of February. Which, given comments posted, is clearly false. It appears that god continues to punish me to satisfy his petty vindictive urges.
1Why the hell have I never received any web traffic from the constant use of that statement? I guess the 'suck balls' line is just too competitive a market, hey......
Posts
13 comments:
Shit. I think I must have fucked the google analytics up when I re-set the template .... Nooooooooooo!
think it should be fixed now..... but I lost five valuable days of data..... verily, god hates me.
I would have thought your statement was trivially false.
How flooded? I've heard about torrential rains, vaguely, but really didn't pay attention since it doesn't affect me personally.
Well Anita, flooding makes it sound perhaps more serious than it was. There was, I believe, very minor flooding at the bottom of McLachlan St (basically a big puddle you could still drive through). In the case of the Brunswick Hotel, basically the floor was wet so they called trivia off. The pansies.
Are you saying, Dave, that there exists a team that played on wednesday that beat us?
You said, "our team somehow managed to beat every other team playing Harry's trivia last night".
You scored 0 points, which is no more than any other team. You couldn't possibly have beaten them.
"For every team playing on Wednesday, Fitz's team scored more points than them."
There were no teams so this is vacuously true.
But if x doesn't exist and y doesn't exist, then you can't say that x > y.
I don't think you should be allowed to, anyway.
For all x,y in the empty set, x>y.
Nothing wrong with that statement. If you want logic that makes sense you'll have to talk to some philosophers - here in maths we just use logic that works.
Perhaps you should read some issues of the Journal of the empty set.
Stupid maths.
Every dog has it's day Andrew.
The problem, Dave is that things get un-necessarily messy if you can't say that ¬&forallx&phi is equivalent to &existx¬&phi ..... but for that to happen, &forallx&phi must be trivially true if the universe is empty.
It makes intuitive sense to me even in plain English, though..... We beat all of the no teams we played on wednesday. I think that makes sense.
It doesn't make intuitive sense to me. You didn't exist, so you couldn't do anything, let alone beat a team at trivia.
Post a Comment