I'm confused. Silera encourages it, others delete it....

[tinymike]

I believe I like MYLF....

oops. wrong thread...but I still believe it. :nod::lol::nod:

[Silera]

In the future I'd appreciate that threads degenerate more quickly from it's original intent.

That and purple elephants with tonka truck roller skates.

[Ninny]

Originally posted by Silera
In the future I'd appreciate that threads degenerate more quickly from it's original intent.

Sorry, next time i'll wake up earlier.

[Silera]

You're not allowed to sleep dammit.

[Ninny]

Originally posted by Silera
You're not allowed to sleep dammit.

I'll hook up an I.V. full of Jolt mixed with Coffee to my veins.

[Grizzly]

Originally posted by GreasyItalianPrincess

Originally posted by fhore twentee

Originally posted by GreasyItalianPrincess

Originally posted by tinymike

Originally posted by fhore twentee

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!!!

you care about \"style\"?!

you trendy fuck.

you fucked GIP?

and yet you call me a queen.....pffftttt....

he tried, but got zonked and fell asleep.

I fucked corpses that, despite their rigor mortis, possessed more vigor .


trendy and boring - not a way to my heart, I'll tell you that much.

A. Automated Reasoning (AR)

The standard will be suitable for automated logical inference to support knowledge-based reasoning applications.

B. Inter-Operability (IO)

The standard will provide a basis for achieving Inter-Operability among various software and database applications.

[AB]

Given a quantitative setup like (X, X -> A), for example,
where X = R^k and A = R, let us imagine that one of the
functions f : X -> A measures some intensive amplitude
or quality of the points of X that we will call the
"verve" of x in X. In other words, verve : X -> A.

Now we come to one of those conventions of interpretation that everybody
normally understands so well, and so intuitively, that nobody ever finds
much need to discuss it in explicit or systematic terms; thus, in order
for me to do so now, I will be forced to indulge in a bit of neologism.
Let me then coin the term "nomination" of f, written "nom(f)", to refer
to the whole collection of syntactic expressions that we use in a given
context to refer to a given function f : X -> A.

For example, if f = verve : X -> A, suppose
that we have a formula for verve that says:

verve = ((vigor)(tenon)/(rigor)) - mortis.

Then the syntactic expression "((vigor)(tenon)/(rigor)) - mortis" is
one more piece of string that we can collect in the nomination of f.

So far, here is the picture that I have in mind:

| nom(f) = {"f", "verve", "((vigor)(tenon)/(rigor)) - mortis", ...}
| |
| |
| |
| X ---@ A

Notice the different characters of the various syntactic elements in nom(f).
Some of them, like "f", may be "dummy indexical transients" (DIT's), signs
that are not really distinctive of the particular function being discussed,
except for a passing moment and the extent of local or transitory contexts.
Others may be tokens that can be traded on to denominate the function, but
only in a given community, dialect, language, or region. What it takes to
achieve a "language independent terminology" (LIT), that is, expressions
that enjoy a wide range of translatability, may be a difficult question.

I thought vortici were forbidden in your forum, Silera.

[tinymike]

it doesn't really matter if she's awake or asleep. she's useless either way.

Unless of course it involves her kenny poo.....

[Ninny]

So Intolerably sad.

[60FeetUnderWater]

Griz, damn you for bringing back that horrible, awful post, filled with gobbledeegook and scientific/mathematic mumbo-jumbo...


oh, and tinymike, dont forget to smooch and sniff up a little bit of Amys' asscrack as well ok? Just put a little tribute to Baseketball or something in your sig, that should suffice.

go for that female mod ass-kissing trifecta!

[Silera]

I thought vortici were forbidden in your forum, Silera.

You think I read past the first page?