You know what to do.
That’s pure assumption!
@Melizmatic fixed a spelling error I didn’t even notice.
When I looked at the title thinking what could the issue be, the first thing that occurred to me was that the phrase “round up” should be one word, because it is being used as a noun.
I figured it out eventually.
I was wondering about ‘Round Up’ and ‘Roundup…’
(Yes, I was too lazy to click the links.)
into Into Pedantry”
Prepositions are not generally capitalized in titles.
Are you trying to make an ASS out of U and ME?
Surely you’re not even trying when you spell ‘you’ ‘U.’
I think technically they were trying to make an ASS out of U and MPTION.
I might know what to do but when am I supposed to know when to do it?
[quote=“GulliverFoyle, post:33, topic:94782”]
it was theoretically unlikely, but not strictly impossible, for an entangled state to lead to felis indeterminus[/quote]
“Felis indeterminus?” I thought to myself. “Is felis masculine? That seems unlikely.”
The first site I found with an answer says felis is feminine and it’s not even the nominative case.
feles, felis, f. cat
So Schrödinger’s Cat would be feles indetermina, or feles indeterminata, or something.
And yet the “binomial name” of the ordinary cat is, indeed, Felis catus.
So what is catus, then?
Another site says there is no catus (with one t) but there is a catta and a cattus.
So, shouldn’t it be Feles catta ?
I know Linnaeus isn’t here to answer for himself
pokes head up through trapdoor…Neat, we have a honeypot for pedants now. Thanks!
Hmmm, I was sure just I dropped my translator wife at the airport to go visit her cousins. I ked, I ked.
I think you’re right. It would be nominative, so feles. But cat is usually masculine in French, so my guess is it is in Latin as well, in which case it would indeed be indeterminus. Actually, I don’t know if the ancient Romans ever used the word indeterminus (perhaps in the sense of unending?, but that’s not what we’re after and plenty of “Latin” words are new Latin anyway…), but the root is Latin (terminus, end point, homeworld of the First Foundation ).
For integer values of P and C, P + 1 ≤ C is equivalent to P < C.
And the truth table above is wrong.
1 person, 1 cat: 1 + 1 ≤ 1 is false, not crazy
1 person, 2 cats: 1 + 1 ≤ 2 is true, crazy
1 person, 3 cats: 1 + 1 ≤ 3 is true, crazy
2 people, 3 cats: 2 + 1 ≤ 3 is true, crazy
2 people, 4 cats: 2 + 1 ≤ 4 is true, crazy
Yep. I think you want P+1 ≥ C
Then you get:
1 person, 1 cat = 1+1 ≥ 1 (true) not crazy
1 person, 2 cats = 1+1 ≥ 2 (true) not crazy
1 person, 3 cats = 1+1 ≥ 3 (false) crazy
2 people, 3 cats = 2+1 ≥ 3 (true) not crazy
2 people, 4 cats = 2+1 ≥ 4 (false) crazy
Now you’ve reversed the true/false test!
I guess the inverse formula is P + 1 < C.
I did, but it works now