Why Australia have lost the Ashes

[C_C]

How pathetic you are

Yes indeed.
Try using the same word to define that word and see the result.
I would like you to try and define relativity by using the word relativity in the definition and then convince a physicist that it is correct.

 

[Pothas]

Yes indeed.
Try using the same word to define that word and see the result.
I would like you to try and define relativity by using the word relativity in the definition and then convince a physicist that it is correct.

Do you prefer the coresponding or cohenrence method of proving a statment true or false?

 

[marc71178]

So its 3-3 ? wow! how brilliant!
FYI, India away from the subcontinent over the same period is : 2-5. worse than 3-3 no doubt but superior performance against the best team in the world makes up a lot for that disparity.

There is no way 3-3 is anywhere near close 2-5, no matter what you say.

 

[C_C]

Are you really dense? You came up with some bizarre argument about every cricket team, if looked at "currently" being equivalent at this moment in time because none of them are playing "at this moment in time". So I clarified for your benefit so that you could appreciate what is pretty obvious to everyone else that when we talk about one team "currently" being better than another, we mean that if their first choice teams, as they would be chosen at this moment in time, were to meet in a match at this moment in time, then our choice for the better team would probably win (maybe over a five match series, or whatever).

Bizzare ?
Question : do you have any understanding or idea of an actual definition of current ? Do you even fully understand what it means ? Strictly speaking, current is undefinable because it exists at an infinitesimally small ( theoretical physics-wise, infinitely small) moment of time - before that it is past and beyond that it is future.
Have you ever done dy/dx in your life and understood what exactly you were doing ?

As per your argument - 'currently will win' it is a firm negetive.
When you are determining the probable outcome of a future scenario ( or a hypothetical scenario), you are modelling probabilistically- be it mathematically or instinctively ( what you call 'knowing the game'). And inorder to model probabilistically you need a sample space of occured events to draw a patternistic conclusion.
You are doing it instinctively while i am doing it mathematically. The only difference is, your instinctive definition is far more overbloated than the reality, simply because instincts are often prey to emotions rather than reason.
You might go all hollywood on me but let me tell you one thing that is known as a fact - nobody has been a great decision-maker relying purely on instinct but a lot of people have been great decision makers relying purely on logic ( Alexander the great and Chinggis Khan are two notable mentions).

Statistics can't tell you, for example, whether Damien Martyn or Adam Gilchrist are currently just in poor form, or whether they have been seriously exposed by an attack the like of which they haven't faced before or in recent years anyway. A judgement must be made, and this subjective judgement will then form the basis of any arguments which might arise on here.

Statistics can tell you, however, whether Gilly or Martyn is more likely to come out of a slump over Freddie or Ganguly over a similar constraints period.

Equally current form and the evidence of your own eyes must form part of this assessment to balance the defects in using statistics alone.

There is no defect in the statistics. The defect lies in how you are defining the word 'current' and having its projection in the hypothetical.
I give you stock market idexes as an example. At any given time, the index is either higher or lower than its previous value( last day's) and over a short span( say 5 days) there is a portion of the curve that is completely different from a longer span ( say 2 years). Your evaluation based on current (5 days) is largely irrelevant to an evaluation based on the longer span(2 years). You are almost never right by using current and almost never wrong ( barring unforeseen events) using established trend for that period.
Should you wish to argue that this English team hasnt been around for 7 years and thus stats from seven years ago are irrelevant, i would agree. Same with how i would agree that India in the early 70s were irrelevant in their overall performance in the sixties. But then, one immediately comes to the conclusion that the sample points present for England currently or India from the early 70s(when compared to the 60s) leave a lot to be desired and thus their performance over a longer period ( in England's case, i have said for the next 3-4 years) will determine their value.
Which is precisely what i said from the first post- England have to prove a LOT to be considered a good team and not just a bunch of upstarts performing well for a season or two and fading into nothingness.

 

[marc71178]

You also need to make up your mind whether you count performances or stats.

When it suits you you say 2-5 is as good as 3-3 or 0-3 better than 2-1 because of performances

Then when it suits you you say it's all based on actual numbers.

 

[C_C]

There is no way 3-3 is anywhere near close 2-5, no matter what you say.

3-3 and 2-5 are a differential of just 2 matches. Rather close.
And i already said that 3-3 is better than 2-5. Also, 4-4 is better than 9-4.
You have to take that into account as well.

 

[C_C]

Do you prefer the coresponding or cohenrence method of proving a statment true or false?

?
Please clarify.

What i prefer is the common logical sense not to define a word by itself. That is stupid and circular reasoning, to say the least.

 

[C_C]

You also need to make up your mind whether you count performances or stats.

When it suits you you say 2-5 is as good as 3-3 or 0-3 better than 2-1 because of performances

Then when it suits you you say it's all based on actual numbers.

Performance is stats.
And like i said, dont misquote me. Either that, or re-attend your english classes.
I said 2-5 is a bit worse than 3-3. 'bit worse' does not equate to 'as good' in the English language.

 

[Pothas]

?
Please clarify.

What i prefer is the common logical sense not to define a word by itself. That is stupid and circular reasoning, to say the least.

I was simply showing that anyone can use seeminlgy intelegent or phillosophical language to try and cover up for the fact their argument is of little substance or meaning

 

[sledger]

yeah C_C does that rather a lot i have noticed.

 

[C_C]

I was simply showing that anyone can use seeminlgy intelegent or phillosophical language to try and cover up for the fact their argument is of little substance or meaning

Sure can. Anyone can come up with goobledegook. But it is for the one comming up with this so-called goobledegook to justify it and for its challengers to disprove it.
Your goobledegook failed the most elementary request ( clarification) while i already have made my point for someone with the patience and intelligence to understand it.
The difference between a hack and einstien is that einstien's goobledegook has so far withstood any challenge while a hack falls apart.
Same case here- you show my goobledegook to be inconsistent or wrong and i will be the first to congratulate you.

 

[sledger]

my god C_C...... you are terrible.

 

[Pothas]

Sure can. Anyone can come up with goobledegook. But it is for the one comming up with this so-called goobledegook to justify it and for its challengers to disprove it.
Your goobledegook failed the most elementary request ( clarification) while i already have made my point for someone with the patience and intelligence to understand it.
The difference between a hack and einstien is that einstien's goobledegook has so far withstood any challenge while a hack falls apart.
Same case here- you show my goobledegook to be inconsistent or wrong and i will be the first to congratulate you.

my gobeldedegook was referinmg to different ways of talking about language and truth. The coherence theory states as you have that no statement or word can be defined or proved true in itself and that language is a constant circle that relys on definition from sometihng else. The correspondacne theory states that language cant define truth or meaning properly because it exists outside our comprehension. Anyway because language is a constant circle and no word can be defined properly then would you requite someone to define the word "the" basicly everyone knows what current means and you are just needlessly chalanging it because you have no real substance to your argument

 

[Neil Pickup]

The correspondacne theory states...

I thought that one was the one that said if you send too many letters you get spots?

 

[C_C]

way because language is a constant circle and no word can be defined properly then would you requite someone to define the word "the" basicly everyone knows what current means and you are just needlessly chalanging it because you have no real substance to your argument

Au contraire. I have already proven how my initial statement ' england has to accomplish a lot more' stands.
Language is dependent on relevancy between words but a synonym or the same word cannot define itself. Like i said, you cannot define gravity by the word gravity but rather, define it based on its properties.It is rather elementary standard of logical thinking, something that they do teach in highschools.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Au contraire. I have already proven how my initial statement ' england has to accomplish a lot more' stands.
Language is dependent on relevancy between words but a synonym or the same word cannot define itself. Like i said, you cannot define gravity by the word gravity but rather, define it based on its properties.It is rather elementary standard of logical thinking, something that they do teach in highschools.

C_C you are Mr Logic and I claim my five Canadian dollars.

 

[Pothas]

Then how come dictiocnaries constantly use examples of how a word is used in definitions. for example can you find a way of easily explaining the word "the" or "is" withough using it in your explination?

 

[greg]

Bizzare ?
Question : do you have any understanding or idea of an actual definition of current ? Do you even fully understand what it means ? Strictly speaking, current is undefinable because it exists at an infinitesimally small ( theoretical physics-wise, infinitely small) moment of time - before that it is past and beyond that it is future.
Have you ever done dy/dx in your life and understood what exactly you were doing ?

As per your argument - 'currently will win' it is a firm negetive.
When you are determining the probable outcome of a future scenario ( or a hypothetical scenario), you are modelling probabilistically- be it mathematically or instinctively ( what you call 'knowing the game'). And inorder to model probabilistically you need a sample space of occured events to draw a patternistic conclusion.
You are doing it instinctively while i am doing it mathematically. The only difference is, your instinctive definition is far more overbloated than the reality, simply because instincts are often prey to emotions rather than reason.
You might go all hollywood on me but let me tell you one thing that is known as a fact - nobody has been a great decision-maker relying purely on instinct but a lot of people have been great decision makers relying purely on logic ( Alexander the great and Chinggis Khan are two notable mentions).



Statistics can tell you, however, whether Gilly or Martyn is more likely to come out of a slump over Freddie or Ganguly over a similar constraints period.



There is no defect in the statistics. The defect lies in how you are defining the word 'current' and having its projection in the hypothetical.
I give you stock market idexes as an example. At any given time, the index is either higher or lower than its previous value( last day's) and over a short span( say 5 days) there is a portion of the curve that is completely different from a longer span ( say 2 years). Your evaluation based on current (5 days) is largely irrelevant to an evaluation based on the longer span(2 years). You are almost never right by using current and almost never wrong ( barring unforeseen events) using established trend for that period.
Should you wish to argue that this English team hasnt been around for 7 years and thus stats from seven years ago are irrelevant, i would agree. Same with how i would agree that India in the early 70s were irrelevant in their overall performance in the sixties. But then, one immediately comes to the conclusion that the sample points present for England currently or India from the early 70s(when compared to the 60s) leave a lot to be desired and thus their performance over a longer period ( in England's case, i have said for the next 3-4 years) will determine their value.
Which is precisely what i said from the first post- England have to prove a LOT to be considered a good team and not just a bunch of upstarts performing well for a season or two and fading into nothingness.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!



Sorry. Just had to get this off my chest. Can someone close down this thread now? I think it's run its course.

 

[C_C]

Most dictionaries arnt considered adequate definitions of a said word, unless you wanna go to Websters or Oxford's limited editions.
The point of a dictionary is to give a general idea, not a water-tight foolproof idea.
And to answer your question, yes you can define 'the' or 'is' without using itself or its synonyms in the definition.
A definition ( acceptable in literature or science at high levels) is a description of the word you are trying to define, by using its properties.
By that extension,
'Is' : A word used to refer to the subject, be it the speaker in second person or an object/idea referred to.
'The' has a lotta ways to define itself, so i will refrain from making a long post about it just for a demonstration.

 

[sledger]

poor show C_C, shame you arent as clever as you first appeared.