http://www.killermovies.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-8931

we posted that on the site last year... its old.

ah ok. just found it thought you would take intrest

im quite honored

Jammin Julian

julian its 3 in the morning !!!! go to bed!

Douglas Quaid.

theres someone in my house, eating my birthday cake, with my family!!!

Square.

poser

i just found a pic of karina's ass on the internet. no shit

post it

post it!

post it

i can't, cuz the school's classlink thingy doesn't let you get the picture url screen. when i find a way to, though, i've found some hilarious pictures at myspace....

can i have the link?

this thread is amazing. literally every post is funny.

my god you're right. great thread.


We should've just made comics out of threads. Like each panel would have someones post in it. Just random shit that we write on here, only in comic form.

and tell me what is stopping us from doing that now?

the fact that its a horrible idea. who would want to read comics filled with nonsense like that? unless the character design was unique in some way...

lil nigga
http://thedickies.com/multimedia/picture_g...h/images/21.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JNT8_57IjE&feature=fvst
classic










mansons kanye phase

ok, I don't know if you guys ever cracked the case on that guy randomly ragging on GQ on some Gamecube forum, but I think I just did.

here's the link to the actual forum:

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthr...31&pagenumber=3

and here's a full explanation of who, what, when, and why. Do you guys know who this is? (I'm assuming it's obvious. Follow the link and page search "glowingquarter")

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthr...1&pagenumber=49

Notice the one we were originally linked to attributed said post to "JixQuillian", whereas this one names him "Arggie"...?

i think i already know who it is. It might be Gr8gamer. He went through a period where he called himself "Arggie" Now he goes by Francis. And his location says Jersey City.



CASE CLOSED NUUUUUUUGGGGGGAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!

I was reading earlier about all the Walk Among Us songs on Collection 2 and how they sound different than the WAU session tracks. Apparently Danzig and Eerie Von re-recorded those Walk Among Us tracks in 1986 so they could reissue Walk Among Us as Samhain and Jerry and Doyle wouldn't receive any dough from it's sales anymore. I always wondered about that, and it's kinda interesting, because the versions of Braineaters and Nike A Go Go on Collection II are really terrible.


5.) Truth Criteria for Higher Axioms.

Before attempting an explication of Gödel's truth criteria, it must be mentioned that the word 'truth' as employed in this context is intended to be in accord with Gödel's remark that the axioms of set theory "force themselves upon us as being true."[38] One could replace 'true' by 'correct', 'acceptable', 'tenable', 'plausible', or other seemingly neutral terminology. In particular, we can think of an axiom being true if and only if it is satisfied in the principal interpretation of the theory in question.[39] Hence, a mathematician who states that he "believes an axiom to be true" is actually indicating what he considers to be the principal interpretation of the theory. It is hoped that the logistic method allows us to recast ontologically suggestive terminology into a form which is meaningful and acceptable to mathematicians of varying philosophical viewpoints, thus ridding ourselves of the nuisance of fruitless, inconclusive debate. This is especially important in the case of Gödel, whose pronounced realism can be seen to have heuristic value (as in the case of "thing" language describing mathematical entities) even for nominalists and formalists, as well as others who do not find it a tenable ontological position. We have avoided discussing Gödel's realism as much as possible in considering his methodology primarily to show that his methodology, which is crucial, can be accepted without accepting his realism.

Gödel argues that the axioms of set theory, as usually considered today, constitute only a partial description of the whole of mathematics. We certainly do not wish to view mathematics as a completed whole since new results and new methods are constantly being developed. It is necessary then to revise and amend our axiom systems, as well as our methods of reasoning, in order to incorporate new achievements. When we add new axioms to the usual ones, we find that not only are certain issues seemingly related to the new axiom decided by the new axioms, but in addition, many questions in lower systems are decided as well. The example of number theory discussed above is particularly important. The integers are trusted by most philosophical viewpoints. Hence we can expect that mathematicians will be particularly sensitive to number-theoretic consequences of higher axioms.

Gödel calls an axiom a "weak extension" if it "has a model which can be defined and proved to be a model in the original (unextended) system."[40] A strong extension, then, would be an axiom which possesses no inner model. He calls an extension "fruitful" if it yields consequences not otherwise obtainable in the lower system, "sterile" otherwise. A fruitful extension which yields number-theoretic consequences is of importance because these consequences can often be confirmed to a degree by computation up to any given integer. Gödel calls this process a "verification," although 'confirmation' would be better terminology since computations are more closely allied with inductive rather than deductive methods. What is crucial however is the fact that these computations are the most tangible evidence available to us. Indeed, one can doubt Peano's Axioms, but it is unreasonable to doubt calculations, the most basic of mathematical facts.

Gödel distinguishes between "plausible" and "implausible" consequences of an axiom. This is perhaps the weakest aspect of his methodology because one can always object to whatever decision is reached. It is difficult to state precisely why the consequences of an axiom are implausible in terms other than mathematicians tend to regard these consequences as untenable. There is no concrete way to resolve differences of opinion, and mathematicians are not always in agreement, as the history of the subject indicates. Today we are accustomed to irrational numbers, imaginary numbers, continuous functions without derivatives, transcendental numbers, and the actual infinite. However, the remarks made by some mathematicians when these concepts were first introduced are not only humorous, but are indicative of the subjectivity which is possible in mathematics.[41] Gödel however feels that most mathematicians are in agreement because the intuition is objective, not subjective, as the intuitionists believe.[42] Moreover, an axiom might have both plausible and implausible consequences, as the axiom of choice is often regarded.[43] But Gödel argues that mathematics has always progressed in this manner, weighing the plausible against the implausible, and notes that conclusive evidence may take centuries to gather. Critics of Gödel's plausibility criteria may be challenged to produce a more decisive method of evaluation. It appears that a thorough knowledge of a mathematical discipline is the only credential for responsible decision-making, and beyond this it does not seem possible to just list what makes a consequence plausible or implausible, other than the fact that it is so regarded by those deeply embedded in this area of research. The value of Gödel's appeal to higher axioms is now apparent. If there is a question of plausibility which is unresolved, the issue may be decided by an axiom which does have universally acceptable consequences. Thus one arrives at a decision by assenting to an axiom which resolves the issue. The axiom is accepted because its consequences are considered desirable. Admittedly, this proposal has its drawbacks, but it must be regarded as a positive approach to the problem, rather then a dismissal, as Gödel views the intuitionists' rejection of the theory of Alephs.

We can summarize Gödel's truth criteria, although it must be mentioned that this list is not any more complete than mathematics is itself. As new problems arise, new criteria will have to be formulated.

(i) A fruitful extension is to be preferred over a sterile extension, provided that the fruitful extension does not create implausible consequences in the lower system.

(ii) An extension which yields theorems about integers, thus confirmable by computation up to any given integer, is to be preferred over an extension which is sterile with respect to number theory.

(iii) The needs of applied mathematics are to be taken into consideration, but the fact that an axiom system is employed in applied mathematics does not mean that it must therefore be employed in pure mathematics, because of the essential differences of the two disciplines.

(iv) A question, shown to be undecidable in a lower system, is to be evaluated with respect to the value of its consequences, the value of its negation's consequences, as well as its relationship to the value of other axioms known to decide it.

The third and fourth criteria require some explanation. In the third, we find that Gödel believes that the needs of physics and other areas where mathematics is applied cannot supply an answer to mathematical questions not related to these disciplines. For example, the higher axioms of infinity do not seem to be directly relevant to physics at present,[44] although it is possible that they may yield results, say in partial differential equations, which would be of value to physicists. The fourth criterion points out the importance of searching for tenable higher axioms to decide open questions otherwise unresolvable. Whether an axiom system admits one and only one principal interpretation, or many principal interpretations depends on the nature of the theory in question. For example, the various geometries seem to be equally acceptable interpretations of those axioms common to each,[45] e.g. "two points determine a line uniquely" holds in each interpretation. In the case of axiomatic set theory, Gödel feels that the principal interpretation is indeed unique:

...the set-theoretical concepts and theorems describe some well-determined reality, in which Cantor's conjecture must be either true or false.[46]

We shall investigate this view when we discuss Gödel's realism.

6.) Some Concluding Remarks an Gödel's Methodology.

Barring any unforeseen catastrophe within the bounds of classical mathematics, one can safely assume that Gödel will patently reject any severe limitation or restrictive modification on the procedures and content of classical mathematics. Indeed the major shortcomings of restrictive methodologies in general revolve around their inability to develop an adequate theory of real numbers. Gödel then, as well as most mathematicians, regards classical analysis as fundamentally embedded in the core of mathematics, and any restrictive principle of reason which inhibits the adequate development of classical analysis is a fortiori pathological. Mathematics for Gödel is boundless, having its beginning in the rudiments of logic, extending up to classical analysis, the higher axioms of infinity, and beyond to bolder, richer but as yet undiscovered theories.

ANIMAL!!!!!

....I'm not willing to spend any more time on that song.

yo Matt tell me you've played Red dead redemption.

I told you I did man. Loved that shit. Took me like 3 months to beat it, but it was the tits. I'm thinking about picking up that Zombie DLC that got released a few days ago.

Come to think of it, we should play online. Online play kinda sucks, but then again it might be fun if I was playing with someone I know.

And here we have Richie about to board a plane with the troops to Iraq, to headline the USO show.

I just got the zombie shit last night, played it for a bit, its sweet!

dude when john got killed i was like whaaaaaaaaaaaat! best gave ever.

yeah man, toats mcgoats. did you do the hidden final mission (post-john death) where you, uh, get some "closure" on that?

now that I know you got the zombie shit, i'll definitely grab that shit so we can play the zombie horde mode. also, grab the free "outlaws" dlc. it includes a bunch of new missions that you can play co-op online so we can nig that shit up.

no, I'm actually french

your a very beautiful dancer....