stupid works. dodo's went extinct when predators were introduced. this is because they never had to deal with predators prior so they were fearless/stupid and didn't run/whatever which lead to their demise.
=> google ... not sure if that's legal. but since you go to google most of the time when you can't think of something/are being stupid I'd say it is.
Anywho, I believe I'm done with this thread as it will never stop.
Отредактировано21 de ������ de 2012 - 13:53borlanged
I am not at all consistent. My leniency also depends on how active I am.
Anyway, I will give a couple of explanations. dodo => stupid Although you can call the things stupid at your discretion, it sounds a lot like an opinion. Essentially, the two words need not only fall into the same class (by meaning only); they must be related by a large and well known class. stupid => google I don't see any reason why to keep google. I don't mind proper nouns, as long as there is a clear way in which they are related.
Current word: dodo.
Quote:
(e.g. AB -> A + B compared to AB -> A + B -> C ... where C would be another reactant not directly related to A and B other than it being another subject/noun/group/adjective...)
I can't figure out what you're trying to say here. A+B following AB means that there exists a sufficiently large class (i.e. a "set" which contains all objects which satisfy some predicate) determined by a sufficiently simple predicate which contains both A+B and AB. A+B before C means the same thing except on a different class. That is, if the class R contains both A+B and AB, then C need not be a member of R. A causal relation you were alluding to at a couple points is just a particularly simple predicate.
dodos were stupid which lead to their extinction... that's a logical association. the word to associate with next should be either stupid or google.
And for the latter... A + B following AB does not mean there's a significantly large set but if you want to talk about it in terms of sets it'd be R -> A or B -> B or A, where R only contains A and B. Not R goes to A B or C randomly which doesn't exist in the set (i.e. no direct causal relationship for that word to be put into play). I was talking about it in terms of a chemical reaction: NaCl (s) -> Na+ and Cl- in water.
I think we're on the same page in that the associations must be logical but I still disagree about circumstantial leading to dependent. I do get what you're saying about anything under the set can be used but I'm just used to doing things in order and my chemical reaction analogy is that you can't synthesize something skipping the second step, which for circumstantial leading to dependent would mean that a circumstantial act that would indeed be dependent on certain things would need to be specified. Anywho, it's probably stupid to think about this game like that.
I think the rules should be put into place that you can't go up (back to the bigger set). For instance:
dodo => animal
That way you guys might finish this thing eventually.
dodos were stupid which lead to their extinction... that's a logical association. the word to associate with next should be either stupid or google.
Not large/well-known enough in my opinion.
Quote:
And for the latter... A + B following AB does not mean there's a significantly large set but if you want to talk about it in terms of sets it'd be R -> A or B -> B or A, where R only contains A and B. Not R goes to A B or C randomly which doesn't exist in the set (i.e. no direct causal relationship for that word to be put into play). I was talking about it in terms of a chemical reaction: NaCl (s) -> Na+ and Cl- in water.
I was explaining my process of ruling out a couple of words. You're trying to tell me how you think it should be. I don't care.
If stupid can't be used and you can't go up to a larger set I win. And lol about whether or not stuff is known part... Isn't that the point of the thread? To try to get it to a point no one can make an association ftw?
You currently don't have final say unless you edit the rules which would be rather prude of you. Whether or not the guy said stupid for it being related or not it still works.
If stupid can't be used and you can't go up to a larger set I win. And lol about whether or not stuff is known part... Isn't that the point of the thread? To try to get it to a point no one can make an association ftw?
You currently don't have final say unless you edit the rules which would be rather prude of you. Whether or not the guy said stupid for it being related or not it still works.
I'm not and have never talked about the relations between the two classes (like sets but not always sets (class defined by x=x cannot be a set)). I don't mind if this thread never ends.
=> google ... not sure if that's legal. but since you go to google most of the time when you can't think of something/are being stupid I'd say it is.
Anywho, I believe I'm done with this thread as it will never stop.
Anyway, I will give a couple of explanations.
dodo => stupid Although you can call the things stupid at your discretion, it sounds a lot like an opinion. Essentially, the two words need not only fall into the same class (by meaning only); they must be related by a large and well known class.
stupid => google I don't see any reason why to keep google. I don't mind proper nouns, as long as there is a clear way in which they are related.
Current word: dodo.
And for the latter... A + B following AB does not mean there's a significantly large set but if you want to talk about it in terms of sets it'd be R -> A or B -> B or A, where R only contains A and B. Not R goes to A B or C randomly which doesn't exist in the set (i.e. no direct causal relationship for that word to be put into play). I was talking about it in terms of a chemical reaction: NaCl (s) -> Na+ and Cl- in water.
I think we're on the same page in that the associations must be logical but I still disagree about circumstantial leading to dependent. I do get what you're saying about anything under the set can be used but I'm just used to doing things in order and my chemical reaction analogy is that you can't synthesize something skipping the second step, which for circumstantial leading to dependent would mean that a circumstantial act that would indeed be dependent on certain things would need to be specified. Anywho, it's probably stupid to think about this game like that.
I think the rules should be put into place that you can't go up (back to the bigger set). For instance:
dodo => animal
That way you guys might finish this thing eventually.
Current word: dodo.
You currently don't have final say unless you edit the rules which would be rather prude of you. Whether or not the guy said stupid for it being related or not it still works.
You currently don't have final say unless you edit the rules which would be rather prude of you. Whether or not the guy said stupid for it being related or not it still works.
inferior => limit
-limit of what?