lol @sarkeizen.who are you trying to kid?

I've laid the logic out pretty plain.  All you are doing is putting your fingers in your ears.

i) The True profitis statement must be supported purely by formal argument and cites from ordinary textbooks.
ii) The True profitis statement has not been supported by formal argument and cites from ordinary textbooks.
iii) Any statement claiming to be equivalent to the True profitis statement must by i) contain a formal argument and cites from ordinary textbooks and nothing else.
iv) Any statement claiming to be equivalent to the True profitis statement must by ii) be unsupported.

Sorry, logic wins, profitis the absolute moron...loses.

But please feel free to continue pretending as if you have some kind of argument (which of course you won't disclose)

yawn @sarkeizen you and mark E are boring.look,either you guys attack my last vehemently destructive statement headon or put a raincheck on repetitive garbage that realy doesnt even scratch my statement one iota.now inject some useful attacks into this conversation because im beginning to agree with our old friend mr tim123,its getting boring  

Have you ever been to a supermarket?

attack my last vehemently destructive statement

Either it's equivalent to the True profitis statement or it is not. 

If it is, then it's powerless because it's unsupported.
If it isn't, it's irrelevant.

Useless or irrelevant.  Let me know which one you pick.

you clearly dont understand anything ive said

I understand what you're saying.  You're simply incorrect.

So we will represent the True Profitis Statement as T and any other statement as M (for moronic)
So what do we know about T?  It's true IFF (if and only if) a formal argument is presented and at least one cite from an ordinary textbook.  We will call this lemma (1).

my 1st statement is a consequence of my last statement

In logic we would write that as: M -> T (or M implies T) we can call that (2).  However because of (1) we know that T is only true if there's a formal logical argument and an ordinary textbook cite.  So unless M contains both of those then M can not imply T.

which is self-supported .self-supported.

If by that you mean M is true.  Then you have a problem because if M is true it means T is true by virtue of (2).  However T can only be true by formal argument and citing ordinary textbooks.  At no point have you provided a formal logical argument for M and not  only have you provided no ordinary textbook cites BUT you specifically stated that M can't be demonstrated with ordinary textbooks.

So you are in contradiction.  The statements M is true and M->T are mutually exclusive the way you have defined them.

You are simply wrong here.  I wonder why you find that so hard to believe?

Hi All,


Updated site


www.quentron.com


I am happy to report that I have figured out how to make the Sebby work at room temp, and at high output.


Sebby is now public property so those interested in building their own home power system might want to try out the new sebby when I publish it. I figure an investment of only a few thousand (not to me) could provide 2kW of 24/7 power.


Nothing yet to publicly share re quenco.


Phil

Hi All,


Updated site


www.quentron.com


I am happy to report that I have figured out how to make the Sebby work at room temp, and at high output.


Sebby is now public property so those interested in building their own home power system might want to try out the new sebby when I publish it. I figure an investment of only a few thousand (not to me) could provide 2kW of 24/7 power.


Nothing yet to publicly share re quenco.


Phil

Mr. Hardcastle have you conducted any experiments to confirm your current ideas?