💢

@Souls_IDK @newenglander86 @pnwguerrilla go for it buddy

@kularnava @newenglander86 @pnwguerrilla I could describe the quntity of Ss you're using with 1, 2, 3, 4 etc instead, no?

Further proof that our government is poisoning the American population with ticks.

@Souls_IDK @newenglander86 @pnwguerrilla succession is a function, not a relation. while there is an “order” implied (0->1->2->3) the system doesn’t define numbers in terms of their neighbors, only in terms of repeatedly applying S starting at 0.

@kularnava @newenglander86 @pnwguerrilla Succession is a relation.

@Souls_IDK @newenglander86 @pnwguerrilla 0 is *the* number, in peano arithmetic every number is defined in terms of 0 in successions, not by its relation to other numbers. your philosophy has just been btfo mathematically, now please go away i have beer to drink.

@kularnava @newenglander86 @pnwguerrilla So what, 0 is isn't a number for some reason, or even a category, so I'm owned and destroyed?

@Souls_IDK @newenglander86 @pnwguerrilla 0 as the starting primitive, S(n) denotes the successor of n, we have 2=S(S(0)). this is peano arithmetic. S(0) = what we consider 1 (the successor of 0) S(S(0)) = 2 (the successor of 1) S(S(S(0))) = 3 (the successor of 2) and so on

@kularnava @newenglander86 @pnwguerrilla Define 2 in a way that doesn't use 1, or 4 or any number without using other numbers:

@Souls_IDK @newenglander86 @pnwguerrilla you don't need to know 2 to define 4, as numbers are defined by what's called "the successor rule". once defined you could describe 4 in terms of 2, but that’s just a description, not a definition.

@kularnava @newenglander86 @pnwguerrilla That doesn't make sense. You literally can't explain how that makes sense in the way you can't touch gravity, it defies reason.

@Souls_IDK @newenglander86 @pnwguerrilla relationships like “4 = 2 + 2” are derived, not foundational. yes a chain of successor numbers exists, but each number is defined by the same rule, not in terms of the others as categories.

@kularnava @newenglander86 @pnwguerrilla Like using reductio, how many other numbers could you remove from math and still have a defintion of 4 that means anything?

@Souls_IDK @newenglander86 @pnwguerrilla numbers can exist without prior relational definitions, therefore yes you can.

@kularnava @newenglander86 @pnwguerrilla Math is a system of relationships. Your claim that you can remove numbers from that system and keep the coherence and usefulness of it is dubious to me.

@Souls_IDK @newenglander86 @pnwguerrilla i gave you numerous examples that prove this statement wrong, an easy one being even numbers

@kularnava @newenglander86 @pnwguerrilla And all categories are defined by contrast or relationship with opposite and other categories.

@Souls_IDK @newenglander86 @pnwguerrilla even using peano axioms, 4 is a successor of 3 and will still independent of 2 because in mathematics that chain is not a definition by relation between numbers, but a construction from a single rule applied repeatedly.

@kularnava @newenglander86 @pnwguerrilla To say that "4 is defined independently of 2" is so off the mark I assume you will want to delete that later.

@Souls_IDK @newenglander86 @pnwguerrilla just because you *can* describe numbers in relation to their successors doesn't change the fact that in mathematics 4 is defined independently of 2. speaking of 4 and 2, even numbers are a category that don't require contrast or comparison to other categories to exist.

@kularnava @newenglander86 @pnwguerrilla No, each number is a symbol for eternal natural relationships which can only be defined relative to each other. 4 is defined as 2 of 2 or 1/2 of 8 etc.

@AMAZUNIIIIII @DigitalGermania @HockleyTyson do you even know what positive christianity was?

@kularnava @DigitalGermania @HockleyTyson That's it? That's all you had??? "We wuz super albino hyperboreanzzz n shieeeeet".

Vegan Gains INSULTS Jesus Christ 😳 “He was a weak beta male” 🤦‍♂️

@Souls_IDK @newenglander86 @pnwguerrilla in mathematics each number is classified based on intrinsic properties, rules that apply independently of any specific comparison

@kularnava @newenglander86 @pnwguerrilla It absolutely does. 1 is different from 2 categorically because they have different properties relative to each other and the other numbers.

@AMAZUNIIIIII @DigitalGermania @HockleyTyson

@kularnava @DigitalGermania @HockleyTyson You wouldn't happen to have Hitler on video saying any of these things? 😆 Didn't think so. So you complain about J€ws J€wing yet you're J€wing yourself lol.

@Souls_IDK @newenglander86 @pnwguerrilla no? a prime number doesn't rely on contrasting with other categories to be defined, a triangle is defined by its necessary properties, not by what its "not". this elementary level misunderstanding is present throughout all of your replies, i'm wasting my time.

@kularnava @newenglander86 @pnwguerrilla Cognition is definitionally relative. Categories can only be defined by their relation to other categories. All meaning is analogy, which is why I use them to help explain things btw.

@Souls_IDK @newenglander86 @pnwguerrilla the fact that language influences cognition directly contradicts your idea of language being relative, likening language to a contract is irrelevant to what i'm saying

@kularnava @newenglander86 @pnwguerrilla That's still happening individually, meaning language is an agreement between us and each usage is like an update or renewal of the agreement.

@AMAZUNIIIIII @DigitalGermania @HockleyTyson oh you're one of those lumpenproles who got redpilled last year, and you're calling ME jewish while worshipping a circumcised jew. hilarious!

@kularnava @DigitalGermania @HockleyTyson Are these the editions the J€ws rewrote, published and made a best seller? 😂

@DRedneck92 well i just looked through your gallery and saw your obese fat sausage fingers. so there's that. like i said before though, obviously the vegetarians will not perform as well and will be at a slight disadvantage

@kularnava I doubt that you can outperform me or a lot of the individuals I follow. Let's test athletes, carnivore, keto, lacto-ovo-vegetarian, lacto-vegetarian, ovo-vegetarian, pescetarian, and vegan. Let's see where they rank in performance, no steroids, no performance enhancement.

You "animal rights absolutist" types are not ready for the biochemical, patho-physiological, and biological requirement conversations, but like all vegans, you'll inevitably fuck around and find out. Good luck to you regardless.

@Souls_IDK @newenglander86 @pnwguerrilla again this argument doesn't work because the sapir-whorf hypothesis already proves that language directly shapes how people perceive concepts like space, time, color etc

@kularnava @newenglander86 @pnwguerrilla What I'm saying is the meaning is distributed and instantial. You can describe a room to a color blind person, for example, and his mental construance is definitionally different from yours, no matter how well and detailed you describe.

@Souls_IDK @newenglander86 @pnwguerrilla that's more to do with slang, grammar changes (ebonics is a good example) rather than language being relative & not having meaning. in fact, with whorfianism we've found that language effects cognition more than the inverse, which completely destroys your argument.

@kularnava @newenglander86 @pnwguerrilla They are descriptivists, not prescriptivists.

@Souls_IDK @newenglander86 @pnwguerrilla so because different languages can describe the same concepts -have meaning- with different words, like one moon reflected on many waters, means that they don't describe concepts -again, have meaning- in the first place? do you see how dumb this sounds?

@kularnava @newenglander86 @pnwguerrilla No it wouldn't, again false syllogism. If it weren't true we'd still be speaking PIE.