yes it was nice to work like the look more into the hands of health by admin…

Megacool Blog indeed!… if anyone else has anything it would be much appreciated. Great website Enjoy!…

I skimmed it, it turns out we are both right to some degree:

Marsh’s Brontosaurus would wind up getting both his name and his head changed, but it is essentially still the same animal. It it wrong to refer to an Apatosaurus as the Brontosaurus? Not really. The popular synonym has been around for many years and its meaning, “Thunder Lizard,” is highly descriptive to the sound the animal made.

Still interesting though. I learned something new today. Thank you for that!

http://www.unmuseum.org/dinobront.htm

As long as WE82 could slide down the tail at quittin’ time just like Fred.

Are you sure? I thought it was just a matter of name changes related to reclassifications in taxamony.

In any case, whatever you call it, WE82 still likely thinks ancient man used it for construction equipment.

Brontosaurus never existed. During the bone wars, a camarasaurus(sp) skull was fixed on the apatosurus.

How’s that for a bit?

That’s kind of the point and it’s what I am driving at. You break down an argument far beyond what is nessecary. I sometimes wonder if you are going to argue over what ‘is’ is.

Again, stop being silly.

It’s a real number in the absence of i or j. And + is certainly a defined operation.

No. You could define (for example) a circular set under addition. Or just use any other set under an underfined binary operation represented by ‘+’.

they hadn’t established that they were using real numbers

Sure they did. It’s a real number in the absence of i or j. And + is certainly a defined operation.

Why are you being silly?

And Roland didn’t grasp it.

I think Roland grasps what you have done in this thread.

You seem to try to break down an argument to it’s barest component parts to make a pure logic (in a nearly mathematical sense) argument.

I have a feeling that if a person were to assert the 2 + 2 = 4 you would call them wrong and stupid and then go on to say they hadn’t established that they were using real numbers under ordinary addition (that is, as opposed to some undefined set of elements under an undefined operation represented by ‘+’).

Why do you do this?