Topic: Statement about the suspect of recent Bitcoinica hack - page 23. (Read 136158 times)

Quote from: Vod on July 31, 2012, 10:32:40 AM

No. An OR statement does not imply that it is all at once. That is an AND statement.

In fact, in speech and writing, an OR statement is also often exclusive; i.e., it implies that it is not two or more of the terms at once. This isn't the case here, but your conclusion is still fallacious.

In fact you're clueless. I can use ANY of the following: friend, associate, business partner.

What is your native language?

If I define a wubble to be a bubble or a flubble, I cannot assume that a wubble is a bubble and a flubble. I also cannot assume that a wubble is a bubble, nor can I assume that a wubble is a flubble. This is the magic of OR.

You cannot just simply use ANY of the options you listed; there is uncertainly as to which one it is. It is therefore impossible to prove that "friend" is correct from the given definition.

What is your native language?

Your logic is keep failing you. If there is uncertainty then I can use any, especially if I believe that it was an imaginary friend.

Vampire is the thief, a 37-year old, a male, a female, or something else. There is uncertainty here. Therefore I can assert that vampire is the thief.

That is fallacious logic at best.

You can make this assertion, but you cannot back it up. I am tried of catching you, it's fun and all - not the point of this thread.

aq

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: vampire on July 31, 2012, 10:25:38 AM

Quote from: aq on July 31, 2012, 10:23:43 AM

Quote from: dree12 on July 31, 2012, 10:34:21 AM

Chen = Zhou. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

While I agree, one could also state

Quote

mlawrence = Zhou. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

or even

Quote

mlawrence = phantomcircit. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

or the most probable one

Quote

mlawrence = Chen. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

Except none of their accounts were used. Zhou's account was used.

And there is no evidence linking mlawrence to the theft of half a million dollars either. Wink

Actually there is. While ZT at least tries to pay back the funds, the overall impression from mlawrence (and a few others) is that he tries to prevent exactly this from happening. Now the only one in the world that does not like a payback to happen is the actually thief himself, so...

Vod

legendary

Activity: 3668

Merit: 3010

Licking my boob since 1970

Quote from: vampire on July 31, 2012, 10:29:50 AM

Quote from: BitBuster on July 31, 2012, 07:48:10 AM

No. An OR statement does not imply that it is all at once. That is an AND statement.

In fact, in speech and writing, an OR statement is also often exclusive; i.e., it implies that it is not two or more of the terms at once. This isn't the case here, but your conclusion is still fallacious.

In fact you're clueless. I can use ANY of the following: friend, associate, business partner.

What is your native language?

If I define a wubble to be a bubble or a flubble, I cannot assume that a wubble is a bubble and a flubble. I also cannot assume that a wubble is a bubble, nor can I assume that a wubble is a flubble. This is the magic of OR.

You cannot just simply use ANY of the options you listed; there is uncertainly as to which one it is. It is therefore impossible to prove that "friend" is correct from the given definition.

What is your native language?

Your logic is keep failing you. If there is uncertainty then I can use any, especially if I believe that it was an imaginary friend.

Vampire is the thief, a 37-year old, a male, a female, or something else. There is uncertainty here. Therefore I can assert that vampire is the thief.

That is fallacious logic at best.

Vampire also exists on this forum. You are not comparing apples to apples. Chen exists no where except in Zhou's mind.

Phinnaeus Gage

legendary

Activity: 1918

Merit: 1570

Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending

I'm not talking about permission from Bitcoinica/Intersango, I'm talking about a legal warrant that allows him to do what would otherwise be considered a criminal act. On what legal authority is he operating?

BB.

None!

http://www.linkedin.com/in/patrickmurck

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/william-murck/28/a57/637

5431 41ST PLACE NW, WASHINGTON DC 20015

http://www.trademarkia.com/correspondent-william-murck-1-165456

http://www.trademarks411.com/marks/75724378-cmnet

http://www.nwen.org/events/eiq-ideation-1

http://who.godaddy.com/whois.aspx?domain=cmnet.com&prog_id=GoDaddy

http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&_trksid=p4340.l2557&item=140610305563&nma=true&rt=nc&si=mAWggEYKpH4g2H7aZLAFESK6gGA%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc#ht_3383wt_1185

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-hINvEsN9OMJ:brainopera.tumblr.com/page/2+&cd=28&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

http://dcurt.is/2011/10/03/3-point-5-inches/

I think you'll really love the last two links.

~Bruno~

dree12

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1077

Quote from: vampire on July 31, 2012, 10:29:50 AM

Quote from: vampire on July 31, 2012, 10:25:38 AM

No. An OR statement does not imply that it is all at once. That is an AND statement.

In fact, in speech and writing, an OR statement is also often exclusive; i.e., it implies that it is not two or more of the terms at once. This isn't the case here, but your conclusion is still fallacious.

In fact you're clueless. I can use ANY of the following: friend, associate, business partner.

What is your native language?

If I define a wubble to be a bubble or a flubble, I cannot assume that a wubble is a bubble and a flubble. I also cannot assume that a wubble is a bubble, nor can I assume that a wubble is a flubble. This is the magic of OR.

You cannot just simply use ANY of the options you listed; there is uncertainly as to which one it is. It is therefore impossible to prove that "friend" is correct from the given definition.

What is your native language?

Your logic is keep failing you. If there is uncertainty then I can use any, especially if I believe that it was an imaginary friend.

Vampire is the thief, a 37-year old, a male, a female, or something else. There is uncertainty here. Therefore I can assert that vampire is the thief.

That is fallacious logic at best.

Vod

legendary

Activity: 3668

Merit: 3010

Licking my boob since 1970

Quote from: aq on July 31, 2012, 10:23:43 AM

Chen = Zhou. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

While I agree, one could also state

Quote

mlawrence = Zhou. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

or even

Quote

mlawrence = phantomcircit. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

or the most probable one

Quote

mlawrence = Chen. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

Except none of their accounts were used. Zhou's account was used.

I exist on this forum - I have months of posts and a different writing style than Ryan Tong Zhou.

And there is no evidence linking mlawrence to the theft of half a million dollars either. Wink

vampire

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Quote from: aq on July 31, 2012, 10:23:43 AM

No. An OR statement does not imply that it is all at once. That is an AND statement.

In fact, in speech and writing, an OR statement is also often exclusive; i.e., it implies that it is not two or more of the terms at once. This isn't the case here, but your conclusion is still fallacious.

In fact you're clueless. I can use ANY of the following: friend, associate, business partner.

What is your native language?

If I define a wubble to be a bubble or a flubble, I cannot assume that a wubble is a bubble and a flubble. I also cannot assume that a wubble is a bubble, nor can I assume that a wubble is a flubble. This is the magic of OR.

You cannot just simply use ANY of the options you listed; there is uncertainly as to which one it is. It is therefore impossible to prove that "friend" is correct from the given definition.

What is your native language?

Your logic is keep failing you. If there is uncertainty then I can use any, especially if I believe that it was an imaginary friend.

vampire

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Chen = Zhou. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

While I agree, one could also state

Quote

mlawrence = Zhou. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

or even

Quote

mlawrence = phantomcircit. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

or the most probable one

Quote

mlawrence = Chen. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

Except none of their accounts were used. Zhou's account was used.

aq

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Chen = Zhou. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

While I agree, one could also state

Quote

mlawrence = Zhou. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

or even

Quote

mlawrence = phantomcircit. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

or the most probable one

Quote

mlawrence = Chen. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

dree12

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1077

No. An OR statement does not imply that it is all at once. That is an AND statement.

In fact, in speech and writing, an OR statement is also often exclusive; i.e., it implies that it is not two or more of the terms at once. This isn't the case here, but your conclusion is still fallacious.

In fact you're clueless. I can use ANY of the following: friend, associate, business partner.

What is your native language?

If I define a wubble to be a bubble or a flubble, I cannot assume that a wubble is a bubble and a flubble. I also cannot assume that a wubble is a bubble, nor can I assume that a wubble is a flubble. This is the magic of OR.

You cannot just simply use ANY of the options you listed; there is uncertainly as to which one it is. It is therefore impossible to prove that "friend" is correct from the given definition.

vampire

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Quote from: vampire on July 31, 2012, 09:46:17 AM

No. An OR statement does not imply that it is all at once. That is an AND statement.

In fact, in speech and writing, an OR statement is also often exclusive; i.e., it implies that it is not two or more of the terms at once. This isn't the case here, but your conclusion is still fallacious.

In fact you're clueless. I can use ANY of the following: friend, associate, business partner.

Mike Jones

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0