thegrons

We see many arguments that are valid but untrue. For example:

All men are mortal.

Socrates is a man.

:. Socrates is mortal.

Here we don t know the truth value of the first premise; for we will never know until the last man on earth had died. So we cannot ever know if this is a true and valid syllogism. This argument We see many arguments that are valid but untrue. For example:

All men are mortal.

Socrates is a man.

:. Socrates is mortal.

Here we don't know the truth value of the first premise; for we will never know until the last man on earth had died. So we cannot ever know if this is a true and valid syllogism or (modus Ponens). Same with the material conditional when the antecedent is necessarily false. So I don't see why we don't throw our hands up about every false valid argument. What say you? The problem with the material conditional may be vacuously valid, yet untrue.

At the rate of 60 ft. per day (I'm assuming a constant rate), then 20 million years ago the surface of the sun would have touched the surface of the earth. Consider the gravitational pull of the sun millions of years ago, as well as the heat and you must accept a young universe theory.

Can this be applied to both induction and deduction in that is speaks with a tad bit more precision with regards to the conclusion not following from the premises?

I have read the Chaos theory which ostensibly grounds this proposition; however, we have never observed a causal nexus, nor is the causal chain of events verifiable. Frankly if one is to believe in the Butterfly Effect they must succumb to the ontological argument and admit to an unmoved mover who has the power of self existence, and self movement.

Seems to me that set theory is merely calling a rose by another name. Instead of using abstract numbers, set theory employs the abstract logical concepts on sets. Instead of saying the numeral 1 + the numeral 1 = 2; set theory uses material objects to put into sets and counts them. But isn't this very similar to saying 3 squared = 9? Everything in math & logic boils down to primitive operators and "things" to count, BUT it is really the same thing, we merely substitute numerals for sets, and numbers for items? Maybe I'm being overly critical. But it seems as though everything is really the product of how our reasoning interacts with reality.

When they have furniture they seem to do better but 4 walls in bad lighting doesn't do well even after I photoshop. Would a full frame camera make much of a difference?

I have heard it said that an infinite universe is "Self-creation with a vengeance". I am having a little trouble since the term infinite seems to preclude any sort of creation? on the other hand I think that if one wishes to believe in an infinite universe they must show some aspect of the universe that is immaterial and eternal in nature; and this would exclude any aspect of the extended material universe as we know it today. Thus matter, waves, fields would also be excluded from an eternal "something" if we are to assign a "real ontology to things like fields and energy. But again my question is "How is an infinite universe an example of self-creation"?

I have been manually cleaning my image sensor, I turned off the automatic sensor cleaning function because I thought it might introduce more dust on to the sensor. Should I do this or turn it back on?

I have a Canon 60D with a lens hood and the kit lens and a 10mm-18mm lens. When I shoot and the sun is as high as 5:00 I get a strange delineation between the sky blue and a dark blue that runs across the sky on an angle with a bit of an arc. How can I avoid this? It is not even close to a gradient, and no lens flares just the two shades of blue that are tough to fix in photoshop

Is there much difference in the image quality between these two cameras? Maybe in lower lighting? I know one has video (which I really don't need) but more concerned with shooting better EV bracketed shots for HDR.

Thanks

Hello I have a Canon Rebel and just bought a EF-S 10-18mm lens. I know there is a crop factor of 1.6 so the 10mm is really 16mm. My question is this. I have downloaded two apps for calculating the depth of field. This is important because I shot rooms in homes for Realtors and then HDR the bracketed photos and I don't want any part of the room to be out of focus but at the same time I think it best to keep the f stop as small as possible so I don't end up with a long shutter and noise. How do I use these apps?

My thought for shooting was this, pick a piece of furniture in the middle of the room and calculate the dof so that there is nothing outside the front point of the dof and then set the aperture so that the rear dof is beyond the far wall in the room. One of the apps does have a place to enter the x1.6 factor and the other doesn't. Again my main goal is the entire room being in focus and the lighting.

I also thought that if the room is dark I can set my EV bracketing to 0, +1, +2 does this make sense for a dark room?

Thanks!

Hello I have been starting with some HDR and bracketing with my Canon Rebel XS using the full 2 stops on the exposure meter. I was shooting inside a home with low lighting and was hard to get an over exposed shot. I shot this in the Av mode to keep the aperture the same on all three shots, and I am curious if there is a way to increase the exposure to lighten the +2EV shot?

Any tricks or should I just bring a lamp with me on these shots? The photos came out OK but I would have preferred them a bit lighter.

One of my websites just got pushed back to page 3 and 4 on 20 keyword searches and this happened overnight. I have been going through the site and changing things since we added a new IDX so I had to add the maps to all 200 listings and in so doing I changed the articles and added some keywords such as Wilmette Realtor in the custom doc title that wasn't there before. The article title may have been "Homes for sale on Elm Street and I changed the doc title to Homes for sale on Elm Street | Willmemette Realtor.

Since this has happened I have also gone through and started to de-optimized the articles by changing the anchor text of the links leading to more homes for sale in Willmette (where as that was the anchor text) and now I am writing click here as the anchor text so it would read see more homes for sale in Willmette click here.

Is Google penalizing for using keywords in the anchor text?

Thanks,

John

When I link to another page on my site, if I have that link open in a new tab; will this have a negative impact on the bounce rate and seo?

Hello I have an image widget on the home page of http://billgemmill.com/ that says SEARCH HOMES in the home middle widget section, it works on the desktop but not on the mobile phone. I tested the image widget in the top right header and it does work so there is something about the middle section that doesn't like the image widget.

Any help?

Thanks,

John

I have a plugin called redirect for my Word Press website and I turned a few posts into pages so I had to redirect the post tag url's that got indexed back to the page and I also renamed a few pages so I had to redirect the old url to the new page name. The question is: two years ago Google took months to un-index a page but seems to do it over night now, I fear that keeping these redirects is keeping the old URL alive on google. So I am thinking about slowly deleting maybe 6 redirects at a time and letting them "burn off". Is this necessary or is having 85 redirects on my site not going to hurt it?

Thanks!

I have built several websites with a large slider with some real nice photos and I think these photos may be slowing down the site speed; at least on loading the home page. Can someone look at the site and tell me how to keep the pictures to fit the dimension of the slider but speed up the site? Maybe reduce the resolution? But I don't want to go too low and lose the clarity. I wonder if the sheer size the the slider is the culprit? Is there a plugin to speed this up?

Thanks

If anyone is human then they are mortal

socrates is human

therefore socrates is mortal

I know this is valid but not true. Not true because we dont know that all humans are mortal, this premise is inductive and strong but not true. So what do we say of the entire argument? Is it true with a fallibility caveat? We cant say it is false and trying to call it indeterminate would entail our calling every inductive argument indeterminate and this would undermine the value of calling arguments weak or strong

Does anyone know of a bluetooth mouse that will works with my Samsung Galaxy Note 8.0 Pad? I bought one on ebay and it doesn't bind; I have a blue tooth full size folding keyboard and if I get the mouse I will have the perfect mini computer for meetings?

Thanks,

JOhn