WHY SHES HOT!!

COOL DOWN, PALS!  

YOU PLAYED CHESS EVEN BETTER, THAN AT YOUR OTHER ACTIVITIES!..

Integrand wrote:

Let X be a chick in the world of all chicks.
Hotness is subjective, coolness is not; hence  we have the axiom:
Axiom 1: "Every cool chick is hot."
The contrary is not always true,
for suppsoe the contrary, then;
every hot chick is cool,
Consider the counter example (pick one, mine is Paris Hilton)
and so we have a contradiction, i.e. our assumption is false.
In summary, ''hot'' is a necessary condition for ''cool'', but ''hot'' is not a sufficient condition for ''cool''.

LOTS OF MISTAKES:

1) Why is cool objective ? Because 'cool' is similar to 'cold', and that's why it's unemotional? But you can still be subjective, while being unemotional, for instance when you comit logical mistakes, as you did in the following.

2) Why: 'hence' we have the axiom ... ?

If something is true without doubt, from an unemotional point of view, it can be VERY doubtful from an emotional point of view, see politics, and, see, of course all our errors in love and sex ...

3) The (logical) contrary of  'every  cool chick is hot' is, 

'not every  cool chick is hot', or, equivalently,

'there exists a  cool chick which is not hot'. 

Hence, the sentence

'every hot chick is cool'

is NOT the (logical) contrary of

'every cool chick is hot'.

4) Why is Paris Hilton hot, but not cool? Most men would indeed say she is hot, but many also think, that  she is cool (because of her up-to-date fashion, her smile, her scandals, or EVEN JUST BECAUSE SHE IS HOT).

5) Hot is NOT a necessary condition for cool.

Example: Whoopy Goldberg; most men believe, she is not hot, but definitely most say she is very funny, witty, intelligent, and THEREFORE cool.

6) The two alternatives 'cool imples hot', or 'hot implies cool', can  be also analysed from statistical point of view, that is, if a huge majority of men votes for 'hot implies cool' (I believe that this is  true!) then linguists, sociologists, and shortly, most people , accept the sentence 'hot implies cool' as a truth.

If you analyse the alternatives from the purely logical point of view, then both are wrong, as the following two examples show:

a) Paris Hilton is hot, but (most probably) stupid, and therefore some men (presumably a few only) but definitely many women, don't consider her as cool.

b) Whoopy Goldberg is cool, but not hot, presumably most men and women agree on that.

     Thus, from a logical point of view, I agree with your last sentence 'hot is not a sufficient condition for cool'.

rich wrote:

I'd say a hot chick is cool.

In your exercise, I first thaught that 1. cd wins a piece after 1....Q:d5, 2.Nc3, and if 2....Qd8, then 3.d5. But after 2.... Qa5, how does white win?

I like whites position more, but I don't see how he wins with a combination.

so what's your analysis? or verdict?

Nine out of ten hot chicks agree: picking this topic apart with formal logic is decidedly uncool.

It's subjective people.

I agree, but I did not start this!

When somebody tried to do this (Integrand), but did not apply formal logic correctly several times , (and was even praised for this!), I had to intervene.

(Notice, I am a mathematician, I work at AUB in Beirut, which is in Lebanon, funny that Integrand is also from Lebanon!)

If you read my threads, then you will see that I strictly distinguish between an analysis based on formal logic, and another analysis, based on 'common sense'.

The second approach is the better one, since we deal here with two words:

'hot' and 'cool',

which have a complex connotation. Their semantic is not accessible to formal logic. This means , both alternatives are wrong from the formal point of view.

But one of them is true, ("hot girls are cool"),

if we accept the rules of language.

That is, if we agree to a statement when it is accepted by a big majority.

The difficulty here was that the meaning of the word 'cool' is quite imprecise,

some people - definitely a minority ! - would say that if you are stupid, you can never be cool. But more men, I believe, would say that an attractive women is ALWAYS cool, no matter what kind of words come out of her mouth.

   What formal logic always can do,  is to find mistakes in ones arguments, and  DISprove a  theory by showing that its further development leads to contradictions.

im sorry lol, i was just having some fun when i made this thread :-)

Honestly, you guys are too seious.
I was just having fun, I wasn't trying to offend anyone and I don't think that I have*.
And by the way, what is it that I started? You make it sound like I declared some sort of war.



*With the exception of Paris Hilton, which is okay.

yea dont worry. As you can see, this is off topic, so we can talk (almost) as much trash as we want to lol! 

ur a lazy basterd and a dumbass! see "the best thread ever!"

He wasent being boring, he was just bringing a complicated explanation to a pointless question. His anwser is actually pretty amusing

Integrand wrote:

Honestly, you guys are too seious.
I was just having fun, I wasn't trying to offend anyone and I don't think that I have*.
And by the way, what is it that I started? You make it sound like I declared some sort of war.



*With the exception of Paris Hilton, which is okay.

Funny, YOU are the first here who is too serious, since you talk about 'war'. I was just correcting you. If this is not allowed (or called 'too serious' ) then any forum is pointless.

Hope you don't mind.

and i must correct you one more time, i didn#t feel offended by your thread, as you can read above.

ok guys, i dont want to have a thread where you two are fighting lol

I didn't know that mandlestam is a professor in mathematics (and studying PDE!!!).
I majored in pure mathematics, just finished my finals. I'm hoping to get my degree in Septemeber and go for the masters degree next fall, preferably in France (University of Toulouse, studying Graph Theory because well... what could be easier?).

lol this whole thread os off topic :-{}

firestare500 wrote:

IS A COOL CHICK HOT OR A HOT CHICK COOL

I think BOTH; ROFL.

ADK

Integrand wrote:

I didn't know that mandlestam is a professor in mathematics (and studying PDE!!!).
I majored in pure mathematics, just finished my finals. I'm hoping to get my degree in Septemeber and go for the masters degree next fall, preferably in France (University of Toulouse, studying Graph Theory because well... what could be easier?).

How do you know that I am doing PDE??? Where did you study? Lebanese University ?

I consider your thread about the hot and cool girls an accident.... or  your professor in logic (or in Math 210, Math 214 ?) was terrible.

(In France, you earn a superb laugh for that). Wish you good luck, there is nothing to lose in Toulouse...

...

lollllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll thisis becmining a HOT disscusion9or a cool one):-)

cuendillar wrote:

I'd say hot and cool are mutually exclusive. Here is the proof:

Consider a normal temperature Tn. Then 'hot' obviously fullfill the condition Thot >> Tn. We also have Tcold < Tcool <Tn. By axiom a>b>c -> a>c. Thus Tcool <<Thot . Obviously now, as (by the way I defined the variables) Thot is the lowest hot point and Tcool the highest cool temp, the sets do not overlap. QED

this is gettin' good.

They can overlap since you didn't give the ranges of the quantities Tn, Tcool and Tn.

This is a typical example where we are tricked by imprecise language.

Also this, i consider as a joke.

lol