Postulate of Preference 1: A hat can never subtract functionality. It can only add functionality.

 

Postulate of Preference 2: Any stated functionality of a hat is a functionality that is possible without the hat.

 

Author: David Elkins

That's profound. You'll fit right in with the hatters in the math section.

Too much Christmas cherry? lol.

 

David, what are you talking about here?

!

Moderator Note

 

Moved to Speculations. Please take a moment to read the rules of this forum and the guidelines to posting here.

 

Are we meant to read hat as hat? ie a specialist piece of clothing intended for the head. common examples being the wooly hat that keeps your ears warm, the baseball cap that shows team allegiances, or the bowler hat that shows you are a film director trying to portray the City of London and missing by 60 years.

 

 

Do you intend to use the caret and stick approach to enlightenment?

in postulate 2, does he mean that a description of any physical object, if complete enough is indistinguishable from the actual object in a sort of equivalence principle? If so, Postulate 1 needs some reference to a time limitation of the life span of any physical object or description thereof to be finite due to the universe being finite in duration

Edited December 30, 201410 yr by hoola

I thought it might be a trail something like U+2038, which seems to fit both postulates. Then from there to u238, but I don't know enough about u238 to determine if either, or both postulates apply? But the step from U+2038 to u238, might be streching my speculation a bit.

 

Maybe by now a response has been made to the last post, and I will find out that the postulates are purely mathematical.

Postulate of Preference 1: A hat can never subtract functionality. It can only add functionality.

 

I don't think that is true. If the intended or desired functionality were that your hair blows free in the wind or that the top of your head gets wet, then I think a hat would subtract from this functionality.

 

Postulate of Preference 2: Any stated functionality of a hat is a functionality that is possible without the hat.

 

This is more difficult. But I would argue that any such hat-substitute would, by taking on the functions of a hat, become a hat-in-fact.

 

Author: David Elkins

 

Surely you are not worried that someone else might claim ownership of those two sentences?

Both "postulates" are trivially falsifiable.