Master_Q GROUP: Members POSTS: 1113 
Report this
Jul. 27 2002, 9:00 pm
This example uses the probability that you are talking about. Every form of probability uses it.
I never countered my self you just don’t understand what I am saying

Q1 GROUP: Members POSTS: 4335 
Report this
Jul. 27 2002, 9:00 pm
The reasoning this isn’t following the rules of a discussion to demonstrate a fact is because you never answer objections and are always contradicting yourself. You are contradicting logic by saying more than one contradicting things are true and never prove your points against an objection. Talk to you later.

Master_Q GROUP: Members POSTS: 1113 
Report this
Jul. 27 2002, 9:01 pm
It is just because you do not understand what I am saying. I completely understand what you are saying, but you do not of I.

Master_Q GROUP: Members POSTS: 1113 
Report this
Jul. 27 2002, 9:18 pm
This example uses the probability that you are talking about. Every form of probability uses it. The equation you gave is just a ratio or just a percent or what defines a percent everything goes thorugh that.
I never countered my self you just don’t understand what I am saying
It is just because you do not understand what I am saying. I completely understand what you are saying, but you do not of I.
Ok if you want to conclude this that is ok with me considered it done, but I want you to understand that I’m not couterdicting my self.
Believe it or not I am not contradicting my self.
You have stated that its just the ratio that defines the basics of probability, but you are really saying this is how a % works because that accepts of probability is just a % or a ratio. So you have contradicted your self here because everything boils down to a % or ratio. One of your primary arguments is that probability if its in science or if its Pascal’s Probability are different, but this is not true. (I’ll get into the other issues latter) When we look at genetics it a bit more complex but it goes back into that ratio so it’s the same probability. See you don’t comply understand that you do for your mind and you are saying that you do but you do not because if you look at it its just a ratio and probability has more complexities then just that one equation (even in Pascal’s Probability) I have shown you that before so I won’t show it to you again, but it is not the only thing of it. We can break that equation down even more to make it more complex yes so that it can handle more then one thing.
I have stated that Pascals determining math is just to weight all possible results I have said that a 100 times. (literarily). Physical variables are the same if you put it into the equation or you do not because you are just expanding that equation. I have not countered my self its simple algebra.
Here’s what I am saying physical variables don’t matter but the physical cause does because then how would we determine the results of the math. That’s all I’m trying to leave this issue and to expand so you can see my grand connection, but once I leave this issue you say I contradict my self, but I do not. This is because I don’t think that you are understand the algebra some of it yes, but some of the issues and the connections no.
So its just that you are not understand what I’m saying maybe I don’t explain my self best when I’m typing or writing with out going over it to double check what I said, but what I am saying in the grand total is correct. You have agreed to more and more issues that I was saying I was doing this to get you to see a connection to this issue as a whole, but you don’t connect the dots I cannot do it for you.
Master Q

Master_Q GROUP: Members POSTS: 1113 
Report this
Jul. 28 2002, 4:25 pm
(Because there is a miscommunication) The interesting thing is that that Im just supplying dots and you have to connect then. First of all if you say one thing is wrong the chain will fall apart because they are connected. If you look at your statements and apply Boolean algebra to it then we can study the words that you say and if it has a logical flow, but a lot of your statements are biocondiatial so they need each other p implies q and in certain areas where you say p is correct and q is wrong and you examine it by the rest that you say Boolean algebra says that you are wrong. Boolean algebra is used for this and it is use in other things for the math like engineering. The quantum mechanics experiment does not use physical variables if it did then it will result in saying that none will get thorough, because of it’s a constant speed, but to probability it is not. This is a key factor and no Im not saying a paradox statement because this experiment shows a lot the speed is changing this is a huge issue. In the math you do use the speed this is correct, but you dont use it as a solid variable because its not there is a transformation and in several experiments or probability events its just a transformation. There is more then "Pascal’s probability" then just a definition of a ratio set up I have shown you basically all of. You are changing again all of what it says there is more to it then that if you remember that you said that you agree that the math I showed you is probability at works. In genetics I was trying to say that the determining of the probably event is the same as any other regular event. That’s what I was trying to get throw and it connects to what you are saying you have to think about side the box I cannot say this is why and this is why because its implied. In genetics its just counting what can work and what cannot work and making it a ratio. That is not some other kind of complex probability with lots of variables its the same thing. Everything goes back to that because you just defined the set up of a ratio nothing more. See you are really arguing math more then anything yesterday because you said that science does not use "Pascal’s probability" you said it in another way yes but you basically send that if you apply what you said a bit more and expand on it. Everything goes back to the basics if its calculus it goes back to adding, subtracting, multiplying, & dividing you are saying that it does not but it does it always does in math it goes back to the foundation that why you have to prove the foundation false. Your statements are oxymoron’s because you say that one selection is wrong and the other correct they depend on each other they connect because its math.
Leaving the debate
Master Q StarTrek_MasterQ@yahoo.com
