I'm disgusted

[Cracklord]

Well, I'm not - but I am a pedant from a proud line of pedants, and have no idea if this has already been pointed out or not.

So, unless I missed something, Xykon just broke the terms of his summoning with the Quinton, and it's free to act as it will. He was complaining about organic beings and their disgusting bodily necessities, which is understandable, but unless contractions count…

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1266.html

EDIT: Having reacquainted myself through later comics, it seems contractions count. Ignore me.

[brian 333]

Well, I'm not - but I am a pedant from a proud line of pedants, and have no idea if this has already been pointed out or not.

So, unless I missed something, Xykon just broke the terms of his summoning with the Quinton, and it's free to act as it will. He was complaining about organic beings and their disgusting bodily necessities, which is understandable, but unless contractions count…

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1266.html

EDIT: Having reacquainted myself through later comics, it seems contractions count. Ignore me.

After a post like this, we can't ignore you! (Although it has not been quoted yet, so you can delete it!)

But I take umbrage with your use of the word pedant. You didn't use it improperly in a grammatical sense, but it is my word. Only I can use that word because of my longstanding claim to it as my heritage and birthright. As King of Pedantry I declare it so.

And your second paragraph contradicts itself: can any being with bodily necessities also have free will? I think not. If one gives in to one's bodily necessities, one no longer has free will, and if one does not, one dies and thereafter cannot be considered to be free.

Ipso facto the deed does itself!

[Kish]

What do contractions have to do with it? Chewing: 7 letters. Disgusted: 9 letters. Day: 3 letters. Ooooo: 5 letters. One: 3 letters. One: 3 letters.

Which sentence are you looking at?

[Emberlily]

did you perhaps misread "odd number of letters" (from the contract) as "odd number of words"?

this actually has me curious if by coincidence xykon has also been using odd-numbered sentence lengths this whole time too...

[Ruck]

Well, I'm not - but I am a pedant from a proud line of pedants, and have no idea if this has already been pointed out or not.

So, unless I missed something, Xykon just broke the terms of his summoning with the Quinton, and it's free to act as it will. He was complaining about organic beings and their disgusting bodily necessities, which is understandable, but unless contractions count…

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1266.html

EDIT: Having reacquainted myself through later comics, it seems contractions count. Ignore me.


What do contractions have to do with it? Chewing: 7 letters. Disgusted: 9 letters. Day: 3 letters. Ooooo: 5 letters. One: 3 letters. One: 3 letters.

Which sentence are you looking at?

Based on the post's description, I'm guessing "Joke's on you" in page 2, panel 5. But that was before Xykon made any agreement with the quinton. And also...


did you perhaps misread "odd number of letters" (from the contract) as "odd number of words"?

That's the only way that "contractions count" makes any sense to me.

[ZhonLord]

So far there's exactly one even-lettered word that could be pointed to as Xykon ending a sentence on, and that's the 6-letter word "Spells!" (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1275.html) But even that can be argued as a situation of "comma (still the same sentence)," (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1266.html) rather than Xykon actually breaking his end of the contract.

All the rest of the time he has kept to the bargain immaculately, it's kind of impressive to be honest. I tried to do the odd-lettered thing for a bit and it's legitimately difficult to pull off consciously.

[Peelee]

Based on the post's description, I'm guessing "Joke's on you" in page 2, panel 5. But that was before Xykon made any agreement with the quinton. And also...



That's the only way that "contractions count" makes any sense to me.

Not the sentence "I'm disgusted", which is an even number of words, appears in the current strip, and is the title of this thread?

[Doug Lampert]

After a post like this, we can't ignore you! (Although it has not been quoted yet, so you can delete it!)

But I take umbrage with your use of the word pedant. You didn't use it improperly in a grammatical sense, but it is my word. Only I can use that word because of my longstanding claim to it as my heritage and birthright. As King of Pedantry I declare it so.

And your second paragraph contradicts itself: can any being with bodily necessities also have free will? I think not. If one gives in to one's bodily necessities, one no longer has free will, and if one does not, one dies and thereafter cannot be considered to be free.

Ipso facto the deed does itself!

I disagree that you own pedant or pedantry. I have a Ph.D. in mathematics, we are equalled in anal retentive attention to details and definitions only by philosophy Ph.D.s, and exeeded by no one. We can be astonishingly pedantic when we care to.

[Peelee]

I disagree that you own pedant or pedantry. I have a Ph.D. in mathematics, we are equalled in anal retentive attention to details and definitions only by philosophy Ph.D.s, and exeeded by no one. We can be astonishingly pedantic when we care to.

I'll need to see a formal proof of that.

[Lord Torath]

I disagree that you own pedant or pedantry. I have a Ph.D. in mathematics, we are equalled in anal retentive attention to details and definitions only by philosophy Ph.D.s, and exeeded by no one. We can be astonishingly pedantic when we care to.I'll need to see a formal proof of that.Let me refer you to this thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?657199-Origin-of-ball-vs-sphere-terminology). :smallamused: Granted, this is much more of an informal proof, but the proof still exists!

[InvisibleBison]

And your second paragraph contradicts itself: can any being with bodily necessities also have free will? I think not. If one gives in to one's bodily necessities, one no longer has free will, and if one does not, one dies and thereafter cannot be considered to be free.

I don't see how the existence of consequences to one's choices means one cannot have free will.

[Metastachydium]

I disagree that you own pedant or pedantry. I have a Ph.D. in mathematics, we are equalled in anal retentive attention to details and definitions only by philosophy Ph.D.s, and exeeded by no one. We can be astonishingly pedantic when we care to.

See, to determine the veracity of this… Let's call it a statement, whether as a proposition or a doxa, we must first come to agreement regarding what pedantry even is, at any level up to and including the ontological and onto-epistemological. It might seem evident that it is a signifier of sorts, yes, but then, what does it signify, how and to whom? Even putting aside the issue that fracturing already compact units into singular signifiers poses a problem, in and of itself, we run headlong into the issue of meaning as such. Are there essentials or only dissemination? And can either of those be reliably observed, individually or communally? If so and if the latter, can we put our finger on synchrony, which is ultimately a benevolent fiction shielding our fragile means from their own ends? And if not, is diachrony less of a fiction? Or more exact, for that matter?

And then, ultimately: how can we measure pedantry if we do not and indeed cannot know what it is?

[ZhonLord]

I am so pedantic that I have considered every possible point, position, debate and/or argument you could possibly make, and have dismissed all of them as inferior to my own understanding. Therefore I shall waste no time proving my pedantry to you, via further statements, evidence or any other such action, since you would merely try in vain to refute me.

[brian 333]

See, to determine the veracity of this… Let's call it a statement, whether as a proposition or a doxa, we must first come to agreement regarding what pedantry even is, at any level up to and including the ontological and onto-epistemological. It might seem evident that it is a signifier of sorts, yes, but then, what does it signify, how and to whom? Even putting aside the issue that fracturing already compact units into singular signifiers poses a problem, in and of itself, we run headlong into the issue of meaning as such. Are there essentials or only dissemination? And can either of those be reliably observed, individually or communally? If so and if the latter, can we put our finger on synchrony, which is ultimately a benevolent fiction shielding our fragile means from their own ends? And if not, is diachrony less of a fiction? Or more exact, for that matter?

And then, ultimately: how can we measure pedantry if we do not and indeed cannot know what it is?

Finally, at long last, I'm home!

[Peelee]

Let me refer you to this thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?657199-Origin-of-ball-vs-sphere-terminology). :smallamused: Granted, this is much more of an informal proof, but the proof still exists!

We're discussing pedantry, i ask for a formal proof, and you give explicitly not a formal proof? What is the expected outcome here? For me to not be pedantic about it? :smallamused:

[Ruck]

Not the sentence "I'm disgusted", which is an even number of words, appears in the current strip, and is the title of this thread?
Oh, I suppose so, yes. The fact that that was the thread title and the OP linked to a different comic altogether really muddled up what exactly the complaint was.

I still have no idea what the problem is, though.

[Kish]

I think Emberlily got it and Cracklord counted the words in each of Xykon's sentences in the latest strip instead of the letters in the last word of each of those sentences, which would indeed produce the result of "these are all odd, except I'm disgusted would be two words, unless it counts as I am disgusted."

Can't know for sure without Cracklord confirming it, of course.

[KorvinStarmast]

And then, ultimately: how can we measure pedantry if we do not and indeed cannot know what it is? If I may slightly misquote Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart:
"I'll know it when I see it." :smallbiggrin:

We're discussing pedantry, i ask for a formal proof, and you give explicitly not a formal proof? What is the expected outcome here? For me to not be pedantic about it? :smallamused: The outcome for me was to review the linked thread, and then express gratitude that I did not make Academia my career choice.

I still have no idea what the problem is, though. Perhaps there isn't one. :smallcool:

[Metastachydium]

Finally, at long last, I'm home!

Tiny man is violating Metastachydium the Happy Little Blue Flower of Whirling Death for Humans's personal space! (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0132.html) (What? You have a Halfling avatar.)


If I may slightly misquote Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart:
"I'll know it when I see it." :smallbiggrin:

But then, the observer alters the observed through the act of observation. What do you even see with, I'll ask? Your sensory organs alone or the everchanging construct that is your perspective?

[brian 333]

If one's perspective is an ever-evolving understanding of the world, then by its nature it is plastic. Therefore, as a mutable and constantly evolving construct, one cannot be said to have it because as soon as one accepts the premise of his perspective, the nature of the person, and thus of his perspective, changes.

One can be said to have had a perspective in the past, or be said to be seeking to gain one in the future, but perspective cannot have a first or second person immediate existence because it changes simply by acknowledging it.

[Lord Torath]

If one's perspective is an ever-evolving understanding of the world, then by its nature it is plastic. Therefore, as a mutable and constantly evolving construct, one cannot be said to have it because as soon as one accepts the premise of his perspective, the nature of the person, and thus of his perspective, changes.

One can be said to have had a perspective in the past, or be said to be seeking to gain one in the future, but perspective cannot have a first or second person immediate existence because it changes simply by acknowledging it.This is where Calculus comes in, where you can calculate the instantaneous rate of change of something, for instance, perspective! :smalltongue:

[Ruck]

Perhaps there isn't one. :smallcool:

I meant OP's perceived problem. I thought was clear. It would help if OP returned to the thread and clarified it.

[Metastachydium]

If one's perspective is an ever-evolving understanding of the world, then by its nature it is plastic. Therefore, as a mutable and constantly evolving construct, one cannot be said to have it because as soon as one accepts the premise of his perspective, the nature of the person, and thus of his perspective, changes.

One can be said to have had a perspective in the past, or be said to be seeking to gain one in the future, but perspective cannot have a first or second person immediate existence because it changes simply by acknowledging it.

Precisely! That is the issue of synchrony I've been previously referring to. Or, if you endure my putting it more poetically, the issue that we might be talking about the fiction of a fiction as we try to force an artifact of the mind into a pen of our own imagination.


This is where Calculus comes in, where you can calculate the instantaneous rate of change of something, for instance, perspective! :smalltongue:

I think it's best modelled with four-dimensional vectors, actually.

[Lord Torath]

This is where Calculus comes in, where you can calculate the instantaneous rate of change of something, for instance, perspective! :smalltongue:I think it's best modelled with four-dimensional vectors, actually.And Calculus (probably of the multi-variable variety) can still do it! :smallbiggrin:

[Rynjin]

I think Emberlily got it and Cracklord counted the words in each of Xykon's sentences in the latest strip instead of the letters in the last word of each of those sentences, which would indeed produce the result of "these are all odd, except I'm disgusted would be two words, unless it counts as I am disgusted."

Can't know for sure without Cracklord confirming it, of course.

I mean, even in this context, "am" is a two-letter word, making it even. So whether he says "I'm" or "I am" there's a two-letter word involved.

[KorvinStarmast]

But then, the observer alters the observed through the act of observation. Schroedinger's Smut, then. :smallyuk:

[Ruck]

I mean, even in this context, "am" is a two-letter word, making it even. So whether he says "I'm" or "I am" there's a two-letter word involved.

I don't think that addresses either the actual agreement or OP's apparently perceived agreement.

[Kish]

I don't think that addresses either the actual agreement or OP's apparently perceived agreement.
Not at all. Actual agreement: Disgusted is 9 letters and that's the only word that matters there.

Cracklord's perceived agreement: I am disgusted is three words and the number of letters don't matter at all.

[Metastachydium]

Schroedinger's Smut, then. :smallyuk:

Well, yes, I think you can imagine that parasitic fungi preying on fellow planties would elicit a similar emotional response from myself as well and your compassion is appreciated!

[theinsulabot]

With regards to the spells! thing, I have a theory it doesn’t actually matter whether or not xykon actually succeeds at the odd number thing. The other guy said it himself, the difference in order generated is negligible when it comes to odd or even, and originally it was supposed to be even in the first place.

No, what matters is that xykon is trying to control his words. Even if he slips, as long as it was accidental he is getting a pass because he is still holding up his end of the bargain, by (slightly) increasing the order of the universe since he is considering and ordering his own statements.