Prev: Is gravity running out of puff?
Next: New Primitive Programming Language - Is it Turing Complete?
From: Steve Knight on 29 Nov 2009 00:52
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 03:01:04 +0000, John Jones
<jonescardiff(a)btinternet.com> wrote:

>There are more objects than me, but there are no fewer objects than me.
>What is the reason for that?
>
>Am I either the first cardinal or the first number, or neither?

After reading a few of your posts, I'd have to say you suffer from
Fortune Cookie OCD. No more take out for you.

Warlord Steve
BAAWA
From: Michael Gordge on 29 Nov 2009 04:47
On Nov 29, 12:01 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> There are more objects than me, but there are no fewer objects than me.
> What is the reason for that?

Your stupidity.

MG

From: Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. on 29 Nov 2009 05:20
On Nov 28, 7:01 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> There are more objects than me, but there are no fewer objects than me.
> What is the reason for that?
>

So that you would ask.

>
> Am I either the first cardinal or the first number, or neither?
>

Maybe you are one of the square roots of -1? That is, a number, but a
very imaginary one at that. Maybe that's your role in life: to provide
the closure to reality?
From: ZerkonXXXX on 29 Nov 2009 06:13
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 03:01:04 +0000, John Jones wrote:

> There are more objects than me, but there are no fewer objects than me.
> What is the reason for that?

You defined yourself as a (1) object. From this you abstract '1.0'. If
there can not be .99 of an object but only no (0) object, there are no
fewer than just you.

If, on the other hand, you or another would defined yourself as a set of
objects, say organs or cells, the same argument could be made by
readjusting the definition of object or '1'.

So the reason for all this is your own very special reason.
From: pbamvv on 29 Nov 2009 09:12
On 29 nov, 04:01, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> There are more objects than me, but there are no fewer objects than me.
> What is the reason for that?
>
> Am I either the first cardinal or the first number, or neither?

Dear John,

I would imagine you are a subject not an object, though sometimes you
manage to show so much disregard for the posts you react to that you
might indeed be a mere robot.

Meanwhile some people may believe what you are saying here and
consider you to be nothing at all. (0)

I do hope you are more than that. . . .

Love,

Peter van Velzen
November 2009
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Is gravity running out of puff?
Next: New Primitive Programming Language - Is it Turing Complete?