Word Association

 QuackQuackIvI_F


Дата причоединения 9 de ������ de 2012
Посты:159
Размещено15 de ������ de 2012 - 01:19
circumstantial and dependent aren't related...

circumstantial -> tardiness
Ссылка | Ответить | Цитата
 borlanged


Дата причоединения 15 de ������ de 2009
Посты:547
Размещено15 de ������ de 2012 - 17:49
The usefulness of circumstantial evidence depends on other evidence/facts.
Dependent was the most recent participant word.

Singular

(A matrix is singular iff its rows/columns are linearly dependent)
Ссылка | Ответить | Цитата
 QuackQuackIvI_F


Дата причоединения 9 de ������ de 2012
Посты:159
Отредактировано15 de ������ de 2012 - 20:03QuackQuackIvI_F
^I think you're skipping a step the same with that guy...

Obviously you're correct in that something circumstantial is dependent on different things but that's step three. Something needs to be circumstantial before we can say the word dependent. I thought about this before I wrote that. I should've wrote directly related above.

Ссылка | Ответить | Цитата
 borlanged


Дата причоединения 15 de ������ de 2009
Посты:547
Размещено16 de ������ de 2012 - 03:41
^I think you're skipping a step the same with that guy...

Obviously you're correct in that something circumstantial is dependent on different things but that's step three. Something needs to be circumstantial before we can say the word dependent. I thought about this before I wrote that. I should've wrote directly related above.
I can say the word "dependent" when ever I want. This is word association, the existence of an inference as is guaranteed by something being circumstantial implies a dependence; hence, they may be associated. Note that I give no formulaic rules on what it means to associate a word with another; it is a matter of opinion (ultimately mine or that of any OP using the rules in the first post). But, if you think you can convince me of why "dependent" cannot be associated with "circumstantial", do go on.
Ссылка | Ответить | Цитата
 QuackQuackIvI_F


Дата причоединения 9 de ������ de 2012
Посты:159
Размещено16 de ������ de 2012 - 04:02
borlanged wrote:
I can say the word "dependent" when ever I want. This is word association, the existence of an inference as is guaranteed by something being circumstantial implies a dependence; hence, they may be associated. Note that I give no formulaic rules on what it means to associate a word with another; it is a matter of opinion (ultimately mine or that of any OP using the rules in the first post). But, if you think you can convince me of why "dependent" cannot be associated with "circumstantial", do go on.

I already stated above that something that's circumstantial is dependent but this is after the fact. First, imo, something that is circumstantial needs to be specified in order for the word dependent to be put into play. And you can't say the word dependent at any time... not if it's been said recently per the rules you made in the original post. I think the main issue I'm having is that they're both adjectives and shouldn't directly lead to each other like I said before.
Ссылка | Ответить | Цитата
 Is_this_my_name


Дата причоединения 1 de ���� de 2007
Посты:755
Размещено16 de ������ de 2012 - 06:46
I will again attempt to resolve the conflict by using a word that I think can relate to both possibilities, though if I am wrong on the relativeness (?) then call me on it, as I tend not to be very sure in this game.
particular
Ссылка | Ответить | Цитата
 ['RB']Nerdy


Дата причоединения 28 de ���� de 2011
Посты:2196
Размещено16 de ������ de 2012 - 09:58
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Ссылка | Ответить | Цитата
 borlanged


Дата причоединения 15 de ������ de 2009
Посты:547
Размещено16 de ������ de 2012 - 12:51
First, imo, something that is circumstantial needs to be specified in order for the word dependent to be put into play.
I look at it differently. Having studied primarily mathematics, I don't know the conventions in other fields, but in mathematics, if something can be generalized it usually is. For instance, if for all x, P(x), then one would just speak of P without referencing a specific x, since even though it is a predicate it cannot be conceived of not being true.

At any rate, for the sake of keeping this moving, I will accept particular.

Existence
Ссылка | Ответить | Цитата
 QuackQuackIvI_F


Дата причоединения 9 de ������ de 2012
Посты:159
Размещено16 de ������ de 2012 - 13:26
Aliens
Ссылка | Ответить | Цитата
 Is_this_my_name


Дата причоединения 1 de ���� de 2007
Посты:755
Размещено16 de ������ de 2012 - 18:27
ROBOTS!
Ссылка | Ответить | Цитата
 QuackQuackIvI_F


Дата причоединения 9 de ������ de 2012
Посты:159
Размещено16 de ������ de 2012 - 18:45
Destruction
Ссылка | Ответить | Цитата
 Is_this_my_name


Дата причоединения 1 de ���� de 2007
Посты:755
Размещено18 de ������ de 2012 - 19:29
extinction
Ссылка | Ответить | Цитата
 QuackQuackIvI_F


Дата причоединения 9 de ������ de 2012
Посты:159
Отредактировано18 de ������ de 2012 - 19:43QuackQuackIvI_F
Dodo

I'm not sure how this thread will ever end...

I'm used to cause and effect.... not cause, effect, and back to cause.

(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...)
Ссылка | Ответить | Цитата
 [sT]thunderbird


Дата причоединения 30 de ������ de 2009
Посты:686
Размещено20 de ������ de 2012 - 11:43
stupid
Ссылка | Ответить | Цитата
 [Eot_]RedRuM__


Дата причоединения 11 de ������ de 2011
Посты:1820
Размещено20 de ������ de 2012 - 14:58
GOOGLE


Ссылка | Ответить | Цитата
«21222324252627282930[31]32333435363738394041»
Показано 451 - 465 из of 3393 посты
Быстрый пееход:
80Пользователи(-ли)читают эту тему (За последние 30 минут)
0члены,80гости

What's popular right now: