Debate : 365


Off-Topic / Debate / 365	364 \| 366

Subject:	Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date:	Mon, 25 Jan 1999 10:53:13 GMT
Viewed:	556 times

On Mon, 25 Jan 1999 10:21:10 GMT, "Mark de Kock" <mkock@tulip.com> wrote: > Why don't we put all the fish in the Schrödinger-box[1] and wait till tomorow > to see which fish has survived? None and all.. I don't think the nerve gas used in S's box is very specific :) And when we open it, there'll be a collapse of waveforms to none or all. [4] Jasper > [3] is it ok to put a mark in a mark?[5] [4] No, I don't know what I'm talking about [6] [5] Yes, you can have footnoted footnotes, self-referencing footnotes, circular footnotes.... [6] But I thiunk I give a good show nonetheless [4][7] [7] Yes, those are a circular footnote.[8] [8] Yes, this is a self-referncing footnote. [8][9] [9] Yes, you can have footnotes referenced from multiple locations.

Message has 1 Reply:

		Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
(...) I don't know... I think it's pretty safe to say we don't need to wait until we open the box to determine the state of the fishies existence...just listen for the sound of a satisified cat. :) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:

		Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
Jasper Janssen writes: [[Sniped some stuff]] (...) [[snipped the rest]] Why don't we put all the fish in the Schrödinger-box[1] and wait till tomorow to see which fish has survived? Mark [1] This is the box in which you put a cat and some poison and (...) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

118 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)

Entire Thread on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact

Custom Search