You qualified the source as father of a team member. So you aresaying you don't trust your on source and had to check it out? Or was it more a posting of a source that you would only over turn with multiple sources of the same kind saying otherwise. Sorry but it sounded more like, hey guys I'am an insider. As far as the starter thing, starters don't play the whole gameat LSU and the player could have issue with that.
That's what I just said . . . only better, more succinct, and not quoted from Wikipedia. You asked for an example and I gave you one. Take your F, and cry about it quietly, will you. You want another without "figurative language"? How about a mobius strip, a physical object? If I say a mobius strip has two sides, the statement is both true and false. How about the Bible? If I were to say that "the bible is true" the statement could be either true or false because the bible contains both truth and myth. If I asked "is the bible true or false", the correct answer could be "both" or "neither" depending on whether relative truth or absolute truth is considered. How about logical examples. As you should know, in Boolean logic, a statement can have two values, true or false. So . . . the statement "It rains today" can be either true or false. Or in mathematics. It is known that false can imply true. CLAIM: 2=5 PROOF [False proof.] 2=5 therefore 0x2=0x5 therefore 0=0. Clearly 0=0, so 2=5 . Of course this is wrong and 2≠5 . The mistake is that we start from a false premise, that of 2=5 , and then use completely correct methods (multiply an equation on both sides by the same number) to arrive a true statement, that 0=0 . That process is logical: false can imply true. However, the mistake in the "proof" is to think that only true can imply true, as then we are lead to believe that 0=0 makes 2=5.
False is actually often used to imply true in mathematics. Since direct proofs are often difficult to make, it's easier to show that the alternative cannot be true, hence the first possibility must be true. Contradiction proofs work this way by assuming something false (unknowingly) and then demonstrating that the logical conclusion is clearly false/absurd (2=5). There's also contrapositive proofs (A implies B is equivalent to "not B" implies "not A".) This has obvious applications to football for those wondering.
red...red, football/something posted about teams, etc. is not that complicated...I'm assuming cause I'm not about to read all that hoopla. If a coach is said to be leaving, he is or he ain't. If a player is said to be transferring, he is or he isn't...etc. etc...capiche? Just like when you said a running QB like Tebow wouldn't be able to take the pounding- make the season in the SEC because of injury. That was false cause his only injury was while he was dropped back to pass. Thanks. :lol:
