Word Association

 QuackQuackIvI_F


Posted 15 April 2012 - 01:19 am
circumstantial and dependent aren't related...

circumstantial -> tardiness
링크 | 답변하기 | 인용하기
 borlanged


Posted 15 April 2012 - 17:49 pm
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)
링크 | 답변하기 | 인용하기
 QuackQuackIvI_F


Edited 15 April 2012 - 20:03 pm by QuackQuackIvI_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.

링크 | 답변하기 | 인용하기
 borlanged


Posted 16 April 2012 - 03:41 am
^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.
링크 | 답변하기 | 인용하기
 QuackQuackIvI_F


Posted 16 April 2012 - 04:02 am
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.
링크 | 답변하기 | 인용하기
 Is_this_my_name


Posted 16 April 2012 - 06:46 am
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
링크 | 답변하기 | 인용하기
 ['RB']Nerdy


Posted 16 April 2012 - 09:58 am
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
링크 | 답변하기 | 인용하기
 borlanged


Posted 16 April 2012 - 12:51 pm
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
링크 | 답변하기 | 인용하기
 QuackQuackIvI_F


Posted 16 April 2012 - 13:26 pm
Aliens
링크 | 답변하기 | 인용하기
 Is_this_my_name


Posted 16 April 2012 - 18:27 pm
ROBOTS!
링크 | 답변하기 | 인용하기
 QuackQuackIvI_F


Posted 16 April 2012 - 18:45 pm
Destruction
링크 | 답변하기 | 인용하기
 Is_this_my_name


Posted 18 April 2012 - 19:29 pm
extinction
링크 | 답변하기 | 인용하기
 QuackQuackIvI_F


Edited 18 April 2012 - 19:43 pm by QuackQuackIvI_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...)
링크 | 답변하기 | 인용하기
 [sT]thunderbird


Posted 20 April 2012 - 11:43 am
stupid
링크 | 답변하기 | 인용하기
 [Eot_]RedRuM__


Posted 20 April 2012 - 14:58 pm
GOOGLE


링크 | 답변하기 | 인용하기
«21222324252627282930[31]32333435363738394041»
451 - 465 총 3393 포스트 중
포럼 점프
33 User(s) are 이 주제를 읽고 있습니다. (지난 30 분 동안)
0 members, 33게스트

What's popular right now: