About KingOfCats
Interests: The hottest... under the sun/
Ain't nobody fuckin' with me, man/
And you already know that, pimpin/
Cash Money Records, where dreams come true/
Fuck up my dreams, somebody gon die 2nite/
And you already know that, pimpin/
Hey it's Cash Money Records man/
a lawless game
http://www.librarything.com/profile/carnelevare
Music taste: Now suppose that a condition C* obtains throughout the interval (t, t**) (t < t**), and that t* is in the longer interval (t-?, t**+?). Hence t < t*+? and t*-? < t**, so max{t, t*-?} < min{t**, t*+?}. Thus C* obtains throughout the interval of non-zero duration (max{t, t*-?}, min{t**, t*+?}), which is within the interval (t*-?, t*+?). Consequently, by what was said in the previous paragraph, the probability at t* that C* obtains should be non-zero; as before, knowledge of the time was being used merely as a convenient proxy for knowledge of the conditions obtaining at the time.
Anything else?: The Argument from the Paradigm Case (APC). (in its paradigm actual usages a concept must be correctly applied, for what else could it mean?)
The Generalised version of the Naturalistic Fallacy. (inferring linguistic norms from usage)
The contrast theory of meaning. (any meaningful term must have a possible example and a possible counterexample)
Polymorphism. (Family resemblance and other aspects of the diversity of language)