"an old friend" wrote

what proof?

Proof? You want proof? I'm right, and you're wrong, and I can provide the
mathematical proof.

It is obvious, even to you, that the opposite of right is left and that three
lefts
make a right or 3l = r.

It is also clear that wrong is the opposite of right so -w = r.

So this would make 3l = r = -w which means that 3l = -w. Now, since
left is the opposite of right (-l = r) this would mean l = r = -w, which
playing with the math gives me l = -r = w and so left is the same as
wrong (yes, I could have done this in fewer steps, but I didn't feel
like doing that).

Now, since l = w and 3l = r that would make 3w = r. This means
that three wrongs make a right. Of course, since 3 is an odd number,
this situation doesn't work out with any values for r and w except 0
which would mean that r = 0 and w = 0 and l = 0, although the last
one I don't really care about.

This means that right and wrong are mathematically identical and so
classifying things as right or wrong is pointless because both of them are
the same. And since there is no difference between right and wrong, that
would make ME always right and YOU always wrong and isn't that the
thing that rrap is all about?

2 + 2 = 8 if you assign sufficiently large values to 2.

Warmest personal wishes for the holiday,

de Hans, K0HB
--
If a `religion' is defined to be a system of ideas that contains unprovable
statements, then Kurt Godel taught us that mathematics is not only a
religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be one.

KØHB wrote:
"an old friend" wrote

what proof?

Proof? You want proof? I'm right, and you're wrong, and I can provide the
mathematical proof.

it become obvious you can't

It is obvious, even to you, that the opposite of right is left and that three
lefts
make a right or 3l = r.
nope you are making a false stament

therfore the rest of your **** needs to be flush.

Hello Hans,
Great logic. I found an error / probable typo in your equation.
See below.
Very 73 & Merry Christmas, Ace - WH2T


"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"an old friend" wrote

what proof?

Proof? You want proof? I'm right, and you're wrong, and I can provide
the mathematical proof.

It is obvious, even to you, that the opposite of right is left and that
three lefts
make a right or 3l = r.

It is also clear that wrong is the opposite of right so -w = r.

So this would make 3l = r = -w which means that 3l = -w.


Now, since
left is the opposite of right (-l = r) this would mean l = r = -w,


( SHOULD READ left is the opposite of right (-l = r) this would mean -l =
r = -w, )



which
playing with the math gives me l = -r = w and so left is the same as
wrong (yes, I could have done this in fewer steps, but I didn't feel
like doing that).

Now, since l = w and 3l = r that would make 3w = r. This means
that three wrongs make a right. Of course, since 3 is an odd number,
this situation doesn't work out with any values for r and w except 0
which would mean that r = 0 and w = 0 and l = 0, although the last
one I don't really care about.

This means that right and wrong are mathematically identical and so
classifying things as right or wrong is pointless because both of them are
the same. And since there is no difference between right and wrong, that
would make ME always right and YOU always wrong and isn't that the
thing that rrap is all about?

2 + 2 = 8 if you assign sufficiently large values to 2.

Warmest personal wishes for the holiday,

de Hans, K0HB
--

"KØHB" wrote in message

It is obvious, even to you, that the opposite of right is left and that
three lefts
make a right or 3l = r.

It is also clear that wrong is the opposite of right so -w = r.


You're using the variable "r" for two very different and unrelated
quantites, "right" as in "starboard" and "right" as in "correct", hence
turning your proof into poop. To avoid such ambiguity, instead use the
equations 3l = s (s for starboard) and -w = c (c for correct). But good
luck finding a relationship between s and c.

Merry Christ Mass,
Jeff KH6O
--
Chief Petty Officer, U.S. Coast Guard
Mathematics Lecturer, University of Hawaii System

"Jeffrey Herman" wrote


You're using the variable "r" for two very different and unrelated
quantites, "right" as in "starboard" and "right" as in "correct", hence
turning your proof into poop.


No ****, Dick Tracy!

Since I have you beat by two pay grades, I guess I won't worry about your poopy
attitude.

de Hans, K0HB
Master Chief Radioman, US Navy

Pretty nasty hangover you have today Hans? Maybe you had a
little too much "cheer" over at the Legion Hall?
LOL




"KØHB" wrote in message
. net...

"Jeffrey Herman" wrote


You're using the variable "r" for two very different and unrelated
quantites, "right" as in "starboard" and "right" as in "correct", hence
turning your proof into poop.


No ****, Dick Tracy!

Since I have you beat by two pay grades, I guess I won't worry about your
poopy attitude.

de Hans, K0HB
Master Chief Radioman, US Navy

KØHB wrote:
"Jeffrey Herman" wrote

You're using the variable "r" for two very different and unrelated
quantites, "right" as in "starboard" and "right" as in "correct", hence
turning your proof into poop.

No ****, Dick Tracy!

Since I have you beat by two pay grades,

Sorry, Hans, but you can't pull rank on RRAP.

"KØHB" wrote in message
2 + 2 = 8 if you assign sufficiently large values to 2.

That relation is true for Z mod(4) (an additive algebraic group of four elements, i.e., all multiples of 4 = 0 mod(4)).

Merry Christ Mass,
Jeff KH6O

--
Chief Petty Officer, U.S. Coast Guard
Mathematics Lecturer, University of Hawaii System