• i take back hwat i said forgib me im sick, i cry

    From ____@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jul 20 09:14:18 2023
    i take back hwat i said forgib me im sick, i cry

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Archimedes Plutonium@21:1/5 to John Baez on Thu Jul 20 10:34:41 2023
    Dr.Carl Wieman,Dr.Steven Chu,Stanford Univ - please--step into the Stanford Univ physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. AP's homegrown lab cannot do the fine tuning experiment of weighing a test
    tube of electrolyzed hydrogen and oxygen from water. If AP is correct Water is really H4O, not H2O.

    Stanford Univ. physics dept.

    Douglas Osheroff, Robert Laughlin, Carl Wieman, Steven Chu,
    Alexander Fetter, John Lipa, William Little, H. Alan Schwettman, John Turneaure, Robert Wagoner, Mason Yearian, Robert Laughlin, Carl Wieman, Steven Chu, Douglas Osheroff


    Spam mill echo chamber, that is the Portugese spammer "i sick i cry".

    The endless and worthless Spam Mill Echo Chamber of "i sick i cry".

    +Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within

    On Monday, January 18, 2010 at 11:30:47 AM UTC-6, John Baez wrote:
    Also available at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week290.html

    Surely Gottingen and UCR have weighing scales better than 0.00001 gram.


    +Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within

    3m views Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium


    Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.


    Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium

    In Old Chemistry and Old Physics, their subatomic particles were do nothing and no function and no job particles that sit around as balls or whiz around the outside of balls doing nothing but pointless circling.

    In New Physics and New Chemistry-- All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. Every subatomic particle has a job a function a purpose as to the Laws of Electromagnetism--- Faraday law, Coulomb law, Ampere law, Capacitor law.

    A proton is a torus of 840MeV with 840 windings, while the muon is the true electron of Atoms and is encased inside the proton torus thrusting through and producing electricity-- magnetic monopoles.

    The neutron of Atoms is a parallel plate capacitor storing the electricity of proton+muon and is skin cover on the outside of the proton torus in the form of parallel plates.

    Can hydrogen be a Atom if it is just a proton+muon? No, all atoms require to have a capacitor such as at least one neutron. Thus the Hydrogen Atom is H2 where you have 2 proton+muon where 1 of the 2 proton+muon acts like a neutron to the other proton+
    muon. Thus, water molecule is not H2O but rather is H4O.

    AP is waiting for experimental chemists and physicists to prove him correct that Water is H4O.

    In the meantime we have Hydroxyl which in Old Chemistry, especially Biology is OH, while AP says that is wrong and that is really H2O.

    Now glycerine is a hydroxyl with formula C3H8O3. And what I am thinking at this moment, is that hydroxyls will be an easier proof that Water is truly H4O, rather than wait for experimentalists to actually "weigh the electrolysis test tubes of oxygen and
    hydrogen".

    You see, with H4O as water, glycerine is C3(2 waters)O with an extra oxygen. If Water is H2O then glycerine is C3(4 waters) deficit O. It is missing an oxygen if water is H2O.

    The reason glycerine is so effective as a skin ointment is because it has glycerine, the extra O oxygen. If water were H2O, then glycerine would be a missing oxygen and not a skin lotion that works, but makes skin even more dry.

    Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium

    Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
    12:24 AM (13 hours ago)



    to Plutonium Atom Universe

    --- quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---
    Perhaps there is only two Faraday laws on Electrolysis. I am looking at the one that states: Faraday's first law of electrolysis relates the mass of a substance liberated (or deposited) at an electrode to the electric charge used (Q). A proportionality
    constant Z can be used:

    m = ZQ = (E/96485)(Q)

    m = mass, Q = total charge rewritten as Q = I*t amperes x time in seconds.

    This website gives an example: 5amps passed through molten Sodium Chloride for 3 hours. Calculate the mass of Sodium. E=23/1.

    m = (23/96485) (5) (3*60*60) approx 12.87 grams.

    --- end quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---

    Now has such a experiment been performed on Water to see how much atomic mass of hydrogen and of oxygen results??? If AP is correct, the formula of water is H4O, if Old Physics, Old Chemistry is correct the formula is H2O. So which is it???

    AP


    No, sorry no, Faraday's Law of Electrolysis is not going to tell the correct mass of hydrogen
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jul 20 17:48:07 2023
    🧠☠️ spamming 💩👤 Archimedes Plutonium autistically melts down completely and blithered:

    Dr.Carl Wieman,Dr.Steven Chu,Stanford Univ - please--step into the Stanford Univ physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. AP's homegrown lab cannot do the fine tuning experiment of weighing a test
    tube of electrolyzed hydrogen and oxygen from water.

    Could_Prof.Dr. Sarah Köster,Prof. Dr. Reiner Kree -please--step into the Gottingen Univ physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O.> Could Prof. Dr. Karsten Bahr,Prof. Dr. Peter Bloechl,Prof. Dr.
    Eberhard Bodenschatz please--step into the Gottingen Univ physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O.

    Could Prof. Dr. Karsten Bahr,Prof. Dr. Peter Bloechl,Prof. Dr. Eberhard Bodenschatz please--step into the Gottingen Univ physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O.

    Could Dr.Joao Rodrigues,Dr.Somnath Bhattacharyya,Dr.John Carter,Witwatersrand Univ please--step into the Witwatersrand Univ physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O.

    Could Dr.John Carter,Dr.Andrew Chen,Dr.Darell Comins,Witwatersrand Univ please--step into the Witwatersrand Univ physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O.
    [...]


    Why is the spamtard ArchiePoo spamming a request to do a high school
    experiment which has been done repeatedly and the outcome is well known?
    Why does ArchiePoo think any of these professors would even see Arky's
    request for them to do Arky's homework for him in the nearly dead
    backwaters of Usenet, much less actually do it for him? Or is ArkyPoo
    having (another) autism meltdown, probably because he can't do the
    experiment? When ArkyPoo has an autism meltdown, he spams much more than
    usual.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Archimedes Plutonium@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jul 21 12:34:24 2023
    Peter Bruce Andrews, Lennart Aqvist, Henk Barendregt,

    Kibo Parry Moroney-Volney wrote Jul 20, 2023, 4:48:13 PM: "melts down"
    Tom Zakharov's profile photo
    Tom Zakharov
    ,

    2
    Test Bank For Abnormal Psychology 18th Edition By Jill Hooley, Matthew Nock, James Butcher
    2:21 PM

    Partial List of the World's Crackpot Logicians-- should be in a college Abnormal-Psychology department, not Logic//

    Peter Bruce Andrews, Lennart Aqvist, Henk Barendregt, John Lane Bell, Nuel Belnap,
    Paul Benacerraf, Jean Paul Van Bendegem, Johan van Benthem, Jean-Yves Beziau, Andrea Bonomi, Nicolas Bourbaki (a group of logic fumblers), Alan Richard Bundy, Gregory Chaitin,
    Jack Copeland, John Corcoran, Dirk van Dalen, Martin Davis, Michael A.E. Dummett, John Etchemendy, Hartry Field, Kit Fine, Melvin Fitting, Matthew Foreman, Michael Fourman,
    Harvey Friedman, Dov Gabbay, L.T.F. Gamut (group of logic fumblers), Sol Garfunkel, Jean-Yves Girard, Siegfried Gottwald, Jeroen Groenendijk, Susan Haack, Leo Harrington, William Alvin Howard,
    Ronald Jensen, Dick de Jongh, David Kaplan, Alexander S. Kechris, Howard Jerome Keisler, Julia F. Knight logic journal, Robert Kowalski, Georg Kreisel, Saul Kripke, Kenneth Kunen, Karel Lambert, Penelope Maddy, David Makinson, Isaac Malitz, Gary R. Mar,
    Donald A. Martin, Per Martin-Lof,Yiannis N. Moschovakis, Jeff Paris, Charles Parsons, Solomon Passy, Lorenzo Pena, Dag Prawitz, Graham Priest, Michael O. Rabin, Gerald Sacks, Dana Scott, Stewart Shapiro, Theodore Slaman, Robert M. Solovay, John R. Steel,
    Martin Stokhof, Anne Sjerp Troelstra, Alasdair Urquhart,
    Moshe Y. Vardi, W. Hugh Woodin, John Woods


    Dan Christensen (the stalking insane Canadian of 6 years) wrote on 20Dec2018 8:19 AM (11 hours ago)

    WARNING TO PARENTS

    Archie Pu's fake logic

    A B A & B
    T T T
    T F T
    F T T
    F F F

    Real logic:

    A B A & B
    T T T
    T F F
    F T F
    F F F

    A B A OR B
    T T T
    T F T
    F T T
    F F F


    Now I should include the authors of Logic textbooks for they, more than most, perpetuate and crank the error filled logic, the Horrible Error of 2 OR 1 = 3 with 2 AND 1 = 1, that is forced down the throats of young students, making them cripples of ever
    thinking straight and clearly.

    Many of these authors have passed away but their error filled books are a scourge to modern education

    George Boole, William Jevons, Bertrand Russell, Kurt Godel, Rudolf Carnap, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Willard Quine, Alfred North Whitehead, Irving Copi, Michael Withey,
    Patrick Hurley, Harry J Gensler, David Kelley, Jesse Bollinger, Theodore Sider,
    David Barker-Plummer, I. C. Robledo, John Nolt, Peter Smith, Stan Baronett, Jim Holt,
    Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan,
    John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason,

    All of them are clowns of logic, although they have interest in logic, none are past a baby stage understanding of what Logic is. They are all worse than the fool George Boole. All of them are a disgrace to the subject we call Logic. All of them are in
    the same boat as George Boole-- catching pneumonia and then having his wife douse him in bed with cold freezing water and taking cold showers-- thinking that combatting pneumonia is done by getting colder.

    All of the above listed should never be allowed to teach their nonsense and pollute the minds of youngsters with their crazy 9 OR 5 = 14 with 9 AND 5 = 4, all because a crazy Boole with Jevons in the 1800s thought that OR was TTTF and AND was TFFF. Boole
    and Jevons had them reversed and turned around backwards, making OR as add and AND as subtract. All because a true logician has more than a microgram brain of Logic in his head, and realizes that if you had a string of statements, say 10 statements and
    if just one single statement of those ten is true, makes the entire set of 10 to be true also, regardless of the truth value of the other 9 statements. Said in a different manner, if you have a truth of a single statement, and, no matter how you surround
    that single statement with 9 other statements, regardless of their truth value, because of the truth of the one statement makes the combined all 10 statements have a true value.

    The stupid microgram brain of Boole and Jevons in the subject of Logic (witness their history with pneumonia) is not a Logic at all, for it leads to the incredibly stupid formulation that 3 AND 2 = 1 with 3 OR 2 = 5. Yes, those two logical idiots Boole
    and Jevons and every idiot of Logic since those two, have thought the truth table of AND was TFFF, when according to a real true logical person-- you need just 1 true statement to make a compound statements as a whole be true. So the true true truth
    table of AND was TTTF. And this makes sense in the above idiots of Logic with their OR, so confused were those idiots that they combined a "or" with an "and" and generated a "inclusive or" of TTTF. I mean what clowns are these? Who think that OR has to
    be compounded or a composite of "and", with "or" forming the idiot idea of an "inclusive or" and, not even realizing that you no longer have a primitive-connector. The true truth table of OR is exclusive and is FTTF, which is subtraction in mathematics.

    Inclusive OR, INCLUSIVE OR, is the invention of an idiot of logic, pure slab of bonehead worthless bonehead of Logic, for the "inclusive or" is a village idiot mind that stacks together the OR and the AND all into one idiotic product of Either ,,Or,, Or
    Both. Not an accident waiting to happen in Logic, a multiple chain collision on the expressway is the Either Or Or Both. It is not a primitive logical Connector that the 4 primitive logic Connectors need to be, no, the Either Or Or Both is already a fool'
    s built compound connector pretending to be primitive connector. A village idiot of the 1800s like George Boole and his compatriot Jevons would not have enough of a logical mind to see that Either Or Or Both is a compound piece of worthless nonsense.
    Even a 8 year old can see that Either Or Or Both is a compounded piece of crap and has no business of being in Logic primitive connectors.

    To be in Logic, you need a Logical Mind to even do logic, and to come up with a SELF CONTRADICTION in terms like it is updown or it is overeasy-hard, is the same as Inclusive-Or, a term and idea that is a self-contradiction. Logic is about staying away
    from contradiction. And here, starting with Boole and Jevons, they built their logic on a Contradiction of the inclusive-or. It would be like at the Olympics in the 100 meter dash, at the sound of the gun, a runner, instead of going forwards, goes
    backwards in running step in the dash, not to the finish line but to oblivion running backwards.


    So, please stop torturing the brains and minds of our young students just because you are a clown of microgram brain of logic. And throw out all the OLD LOGIC textbooks for they are not learning or teaching but brainwashing by polluting moneygrubs, more
    concerned over money flow than what is the truth of logic.


    My 5th published book

    Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1
    by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

    Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science. Preface:
    First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.

    The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local
    village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth
    value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF -->
    Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics.
    You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all
    of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a
    mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.

    My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily
    a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.

    Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an
    overhead projector.

    Product details
    File Size: 773 KB
    Print Length: 72 pages
    Publication Date: March 12, 2019
    Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
    Language: English
    ASIN: B07PMB69F5
    Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
    X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 
    Word Wise: Not Enabled
    Lending: Enabled
    Screen Reader: Supported 
    Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 


    #10-2, 27th published book

    Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum// Teaching True Logic series, book 2 Kindle Edition
    by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)


    Last revision was 9NOV2020. This is AP's 27th published book.

    Preface:
    These are the TRUE Truth Tables of the 4 connectors of Logic

    Equal+Not
    T = T = T
    T = ~F = T
    F = ~T = T
    F = F = T

    If--> then
    T --> T = T
    T --> F = F
    F --> T = U (unknown or uncertain)
    F --> F = U (unknown or uncertain)

    And
    T & T = T
    T & F = T
    F & T = T
    F & F = F


    Or
    T or T = F
    T or F = T
    F or T = T
    F or F = F

    Those can be analyzed as being Equal+Not is multiplication. If-->then is division. And is addition and Or is subtraction in mathematics. Now I need to emphasis this error of Old Logic, the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the
    reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of
    division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division
    by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of
    mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability unknown, undefined end conclusion.

    Now in Old Logic they had for Reductio Ad Absurdum as displayed by this schematic:

    | | ~p
    | |---
    | | .
    | | .
    | | q
    | | .
    | | .
    | | ~q
    | p

    Which is fine except for the error of not indicating the end conclusion of "p" is only a probability of being true, not guaranteed as true. And this is the huge huge error that mathematicians have fallen victim of. For the Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a
    proof method for mathematics, it is probability of being true or false. Math works on guaranteed truth, not probability. This textbook is written to fix that error.


    Product details
    • ASIN : B07Q18GQ7S
    • Publication date : March 23, 2019
    • Language : English
    • File size : 1178 KB
    • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
    • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
    • X-Ray : Not Enabled
    • Word Wise : Not Enabled
    • Print length : 86 pages
    • Lending : Enabled
    • Best Sellers Rank: #346,875 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store) ◦ #28 in Logic (Kindle Store)
    ◦ #95 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
    ◦ #217 in Mathematical Logic



    #10-3, 143rd published book

    DeMorgan's Laws are fantasies, not laws// Teaching True Logic series, book 3 Kindle Edition
    By Archimedes Plutonium

    Last revision was 30Apr2021. This is AP's 143rd published book.

    Preface: The Logic community never had the correct truth table of the primitive 4 connectors of Logic, (1) Equal compounded with NOT, (2) AND, (3) OR, (4) IF->THEN. In 1800s, the founders of Logic messed up in terrible error all 4 of the primitive logic
    connectors. And since the 1990s, AP has wanted an explanation of why Old Logic got all 4 connectors in total error? What was the reason for the mess up? And in the past few years, I finally pinned the reason to starting Logic with DeMorgan's fake laws,
    from which Boole, a close friend of DeMorgan, was going to keep his friendship and accept the DeMorgan Laws. That meant that DeMorgan, Boole, Jevons accepted OR as being that of Either..Or..Or..Both, what is called the inclusive OR. But the inclusive OR
    is a contradiction in terms, for there never can exist a combo of OR with AND simultaneously. This book goes into detail why the DeMorgan laws are fake and fantasy.

    Cover Picture: Looks a bit rough, but I want students and readers to see my own handwriting as if this were a lecture and the cover picture a blackboard where I write out DeMorgan's two (fake) laws of logic.

    Product details
    • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08M4BY4XM
    • Publication date ‏ : ‎ October 27, 2020
    • Language ‏ : ‎ English
    • File size ‏ : ‎ 620 KB
    • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
    • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
    • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
    • Print length ‏ : ‎ 39 pages
    • Best Sellers Rank: #3,508,308 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
    ◦ #757 in One-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
    ◦ #1,816 in Logic & Language Philosophy
    ◦ #5,961 in Philosophy of Logic & Language


    #10-4, 100th published book

    Pragmatism, the only Philosophy I loved // Teaching True Logic series, book 4 Kindle Edition
    By Archimedes Plutonium

    I need to give credit to the philosophy of Pragmatism, the only philosophy that I know of that is based on science. Credit for my discovery of the Plutonium Atom Totality in 1990, came in part, partially due to a passage of the Pragmatist Charles Sanders
    Peirce in Peirce's Cosmology:

    Peirce's The Architecture of Theories...
    ...would be a Cosmogonic Philosophy. It would suppose that in the beginning - infinitely remote - there was a chaos of unpersonalized feeling, which being without connection or regularity would properly be without existence. This feeling,
    sporting here and there in pure arbitrariness, would have
    started the germ of a generalizing tendency. Its other sportings would be evanescent, but this would have a growing virtue. Thus, the tendency to habit would be started; and from this, with the other principles of evolution, all the regularities of the
    universe would be evolved. At any time, however, an element of pure chance survives and will remain until the world becomes an absolutely perfect, rational, and symmetrical system, in which mind is at last crystallized in the infinitely distant future.
    --- end quoting Peirce's Cosmology ---

    But also I must give credit to Pragmatism for making it a philosophy one can actually live their lives by, for living a life of pragmatic solutions to everyday problems that occur in my life. A case in point example is now in March 2020, being the
    pragmatist that I am, and enduring the 2020 corona virus pandemic. No other philosophy that I know of is so keenly in tune with a person, the surrounding environment and how to live.


    Product details
    • File size : 807 KB
    • Word Wise : Enabled
    • Print length : 123 pages
    • Publication date : March 14, 2020
    • ASIN : B085X863QW
    • Language: : English
    • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
    • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
    • Screen Reader : Supported
    • X-Ray : Not Enabled
    • Lending : Enabled
    • Best Sellers Rank: #4,160,707 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
    ◦ #61,471 in Philosophy (Kindle Store)
    ◦ #193,599 in Science & Math (Kindle Store)
    ◦ #240,849 in Philosophy (B