Hal.

It's very easy to see the pattern when those who make it have done so plentifully before .

I supposed correctly , Cuthber , from the posts of two people and you aren't one of them .

Could you elaborate ?

Pardon me , does this post look familiar ?

This is an attempt at a development which is what I admire . I am supposing it is impossible , as I did not see a proof of impossibility , I do know who I am willing to believe if they say it is impossible . You could be surprised how a person could receive an A+ for trying to prove something which is impossible to prove as it doesn't really matter sometimes if somebody is right or wrong , it is about the persistence of an argument . Take law as an example , people are committing crime all day long and lawyers are convincing people of their innocence even if only their guilt can be proven . Maybe the original poster could take a lesson from the legal profession in so far as trying not to prove the geometry but trying to convince people of it's proof first which could be much easier .

I see the dots , they are clear to me , do you see more than one ? , is my dot clear to you ?

bob boben , I like to see people attempting to develop these types of things , good luck in your supposed impossible task . By reliable accounts it can't be done , that doesn't stop you trying and if you have the conclusion some time in the future that it can't be done we may then all be gone .

Does anybody think that plants make fruit specifically for consumption by animals , in other words , do plants specifically have as their goal the consumption of their fruit as a route of getting their seeds to grow ?

If the position of a dot was to be argued for 6 months and finally it's position was correct , I would be happy the argument was well worthwhile .

dragonstar57 , I don't know what I can say to continue the conversation or even if further explanation is needed . There is another thread over in the Chemistry section called ' to melt or not to melt ' , have a read if it interests you . I'm not trying to be arrogant or rude , just as you would like , no repetition .

shadow , If you were a math lecturer and you told me that I was to apply the rules your way , then I would . If you are correct , then I've learned a new exception or maybe forgotten an old one I shouldn't have forgotten , so thanks .

If this was part of a calculation I did I would probably apply the rule of turning the denominator upside down and multiplying , giving 0/1 , then finishing thinking that 0 divided by an integer is 0 . 0

We've all seen an apple , an orange , a tomato , etc . So , what is the purpose of these in the bigger picture of the evolution of plants ? I know the fruit contains the seeds to make a new plant , what is the purpose of the rest of the apple , orange or tomato ?

Take for instance an ice cube and heat it until it flows as water . It has been melted and it can also be described as having been Hal.'s melted . Hal.'s melting is not a term for non-reversible processes . It is melting independent of any part of it's proof being evidence of the reverse process of fusion . Also , if you think I am saying melting isn't reversible , you are mistaken . Lastly , the term , " Hal.'s melt " , was first used by CaptainPanic in his wisdom to describe the point of view of melting which I have , I have simply tried to explain it as it has been questioned .

dragonstar57 , If you think my replies are always the same it may be because I am consistently describing the same thing . Don't interpret my view as meaning that when a material changes from a solid to a liquid it has melted . I do not say this , as I am wise enough to understand that solid materials can become a part of a liquid and it can't be called melting . Only recently I put some plant matter in a container and filled it with water as much as possible and a few weeks later it appears that I have a container which contains a liquid and bubbles of gas . The plant matter did not melt .

dragonstar57 , to form an opinion of what it is I ascert you must understand 100 % of the concept as 99 % is not good enough . Hal.'s melting is different than conventional melting because it is independent of any reliance on reversibility . This means that if you heat an ice cube to a liquid and refreeze it and use the fact that you have reversed the phase change to form any part of the proof that you have firstly melted the ice cube , your proof is reliant on reversibility . I merely use a definition of melting which will not rely on reversibility . In other words , the reverse phase change will not form any part of the proof that melting had originally taken place . edit : spelling

Dragonstar57 , Hal.'s melt is consistent with the view that a phase change has taken place , it is consistent with the view that the same material exists after the phase change as that which existed before the phase change .

Moo , Swansont knows differently . If you decide I am personally attacking Swansont and trying to hijack a thread , what can I say , I must state my position as you have stated yours and we will not argue this as you request , I disagree , whilst expecting you will allow for the difference in stating a position and arguing one . Rules are common sense , thank you for your notes .

Yes Amanda , I think like that reading Swansont , he affects my thinking , forgive me . Amanda , what's wrong with having a 50 % corporate tax rate ?

Ask yourself this , Would she only kick your butt if you got caught ?

Swansont , I'm assuming you're an expert at not plain and simply answering the questions you've been asked and asking instead a question to them . Did you learn that in grade school ?

Swansont , Tesco ?

I'm assuming you're saying brawn is wrong Swansont . It would be wrong for any normal acceptable system to behave in that way . What is the underlying issue that makes people do that ? If people had smashed their way into ' Tesco ' and run away with food instead of televisions , would you think this stealing for necessity is wrong ?

Should the people here declare whether they are Democrat or Republican ? Would you like to have 17 political parties and use coalitions ?

This answer tells me that zapatos has understood the question , is not trying to read between the lines into different meanings that I , Hal , could be imagined to be insinuating , takes the question as he sees it , all in all answers concisely and appropriately to what was asked . An A+ for zapatos ! I'd make a distinction of rioting and looting . There could of course be people who would be categorised as doing both , I would tend to see looting as theft where some people who could just be hanging around watching rioting could be taken along by what they see going on and temporarily of stupidity assume it is a free for all . I'm referring to the taking of goods without paying for them , you do realise that Swansont , you are a smart chap ! If they didn't ? , .......... , I'd have the happy life I do now ! , .......... , assuming they did ? , .......... , they would be right in their views from their points of view and wrong in mine from my point of view . Would my point of view be widely accepted ?