X must be true or false. It cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense. It can't drive down the middle of the street because that would violate the law of the excluded middle.

I was under the impression that something is always right only if it is XX; at least, anything less than XX must pretend that XX is always right, otherwise unspeakable horrors come upon the anything that is less than XX. I have no idea what this means, but I think I read it in "Dad's Tool Shed."

X must be true or false. It cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense. It can't drive down the middle of the street because that would violate the law of the excluded middle.

Interesting discussion. Since your typing 'X' on your keyboard and scheme is based on the ASCII character set, the integer representation of 'X' is 88. Since computers actually only understand is binary our conversion from decimal to binary produces 1011000. Therefor, X is 1011000.

Interesting discussion. Since your typing 'X' on your keyboard and scheme is based on the ASCII character set, the integer representation of 'X' is 88. Since computers actually only understand is binary our conversion from decimal to binary produces 1011000. Therefor, X is 1011000.

Interesting discussion. Since your typing 'X' on your keyboard and scheme is based on the ASCII character set, the integer representation of 'X' is 88. Since computers actually only understand is binary our conversion from decimal to binary produces 1011000. Therefor, X is 1011000.

Interesting discussion. Since your typing 'X' on your keyboard and scheme is based on the ASCII character set, the integer representation of 'X' is 88. Since computers actually only understand is binary our conversion from decimal to binary produces 1011000. Therefor, X is 1011000.

Methinks this is all a veiled attempt to seek to make fun of sound reasoning. This happens when one cannot come up with sound arguments and so humor is used to deflect and diffuse.

X = 10 so it must be referring to the Decalogue, which is true. Therefore if we reference the LXX, there is a 2 to 1 preponderance of the Xs vs Ls so I must side with the Xs. However if we take note that the X is a Roman numeral, we must reject it because it would reference the faulty Decalogue contained in the RC translation and render this satire completely bogus.

X = 10 so it must be referring to the Decalogue, which is true. Therefore if we reference the LXX, there is a 2 to 1 preponderance of the Xs vs Ls so I must side with the Xs. However if we take note that the X is a Roman numeral, we must reject it because it would reference the faulty Decalogue contained in the RC translation and render this satire completely bogus.

Methinks this is all a veiled attempt to seek to make fun of sound reasoning. This happens when one cannot come up with sound arguments and so humor is used to deflect and diffuse.

X = 10 so it must be referring to the Decalogue, which is true. Therefore if we reference the LXX, there is a 2 to 1 preponderance of the Xs vs Ls so I must side with the Xs. However if we take note that the X is a Roman numeral, we must reject it because it would reference the faulty Decalogue contained in the RC translation and render this satire completely bogus.

X = 10 so it must be referring to the Decalogue, which is true. Therefore if we reference the LXX, there is a 2 to 1 preponderance of the Xs vs Ls so I must side with the Xs. However if we take note that the X is a Roman numeral, we must reject it because it would reference the faulty Decalogue contained in the RC translation and render this satire completely bogus.

X = 10 so it must be referring to the Decalogue, which is true. Therefore if we reference the LXX, there is a 2 to 1 preponderance of the Xs vs Ls so I must side with the Xs. However if we take note that the X is a Roman numeral, we must reject it because it would reference the faulty Decalogue contained in the RC translation and render this satire completely bogus.