merci pour le review détaillé et intéressant ! :)
j'aurais voulu venir, ne serait-ce que pour matitetante, mais j'étais vraiment trop fatigué... et c'était cher et loin :P

weeeeeeeeee !!!!!!!!! :D

hahahhh :)

oh lol partout :)

this doesn't even need photoshop :P

ha bein tabarouette ça m'a-tu pris 4 minutes pour écrire ce post?! :)

There used to be [ allsp.com ] but it doesn't seem to load right now...
I think George gave me another address like that too, a few months/years ago.

Damn! I was sure the first comments would have been about how there are too many regular dubstep nights in town... :P

hahah funny definitions and examples :)

Stab: To take a knife, and poke something with it until they stop moving.
Woah, did you see him stab that guy? What a mess.

Stab: To use one's bonafied penis as a knife and pelvic thrust it into objects of affection.
Man Kyle Gibney is stabbing the hell out of that bowling ball.

Stab: Smart Trendy Asian Bitch, like a tab but smart
I'd rather date a STAB but I'll settle for a TAB.

hipster stabbing!! :D

hahah la vieille voix trop lol

le meilleur pussy stabbing ever!

it's a-comin'!!!...

so right on spot :)

Although I'm totally against it for my personal purposes, I recently made a facebook page in order to control and see the facebook page of my band. I ignored all of the friend requests I had and my profile is blank. Some people managed to find me and send me messages or whatnots anyways, so I posted a message on my profile saying that I'm only using this for my band; but some people keep on trying to friend me and message me... that's horrible :P I think I might even lose some "friends" because of that... well, makes the sorting easier :)

oh so good crack :)



The symbols might not appear correctly... I meant (*) is somehow like "for all", i.e. universal quantification, and (#) is like "there exists", i.e. existential quantification.

I also forgot to say that I found the text rather well-written :)

At first I thought it was for a paper (I mean, scientific publication) so I made some corrections about phrasings and explanations; but then I stopped when I got at the examples in the second part :)
I also inserted some comments between <<<chevrons>>>.

It's interesting and I didn't know about that stuff; however I'm familiar with "Kripke structures", which seem to be almost the same thing as "Kripke frames/models", the former being a set-theoretical model and the latter appearing to me as a philosophical view of this same model.

=========================

Kripkian semantics is a formal semantic for a language with (*) for necessity and (#) for possibility. It is sometimes called ‘possible world semantics’ or ‘relational semantics’. A Kripke frame F (or modal frame) for a sentential language is a pair (W, R), where W is an non empty set (the possible worlds), and R is a binary relation on W. The relation is usually interpreted either by means of ‘relative possibility’ or ‘accessibility’. A model M on the frame (W, R) is the triple (W, R, V), where V is the valuation function that will assign truth values to the sentence letters at worlds. Given this, we can establish truth conditions for (*).

If w € W, then a sentence like (*)A is true at world w in the model (W, R, V) if A is true at all worlds w' € W. So, we may say informally, (*)A is true at world w, if A is true at all worlds that would be possible if w were actual. When speaking of the notion of validity, it can be applied to both the model M, and to the frame F. In the case of a model, A is valid in the model (W, R, V) if it is true at all worlds w € W, in that model. In the case of the frame, it is valid in the frame (W, R) if it is valid for any valuation function V. The accessibility relation is often explained in terms of the modal operators, which seems circular because it uses the very modalities it interprets to try to give an explicit analysis<<<I don't know how it's usually explained, but I think you can see it as a transition relation between worlds: R is a subset of the cartesian product WxW, and w R w' means that you can go from w to w', i.e. (V(w,(*)A) ٨ wRw') implies V(w',(*)A)>>>. Furthermore, issues regarding quantification in modal systems (specifically over different types of sets) are tied up in deeply controversial questions with regards to the nature of set theory and the status of natural kinds<<<I'm not sure what your point is in this sentence, since it's more like a philosophical discussion than a theoretical statement/scientific fact. By reading the end, I think you may want to do an analogy between (*) and Ɐ as well as between (#) and ⱻ>>>.

A modal system typically uses (*) and (#) to mean something akin to (1)‘it is necessary that’ and (2) ‘it is possible that’. (1) and (2) can be defined in terms of each other, which is what is known as the ‘dual form’ or ‘modal inter-definability’ such that:

(*)p = ¬(#)¬p
(#)p = ¬(*)¬p

Modal operators are one-place connectives, like negation. Modal operators don’t really express truth in the sense that we can’t give truth values (┬ or ┴) like other connectives, but rather that we must regard (*) and (#) as quantifiers over possible worlds. A possible world is to be understood as a complete way in which things might have been or might be. In set theoretic terms, (*)p means p is true in all possible worlds, and (#)p means p is true in at least one possible world. We might conceive of a special world, call it w^; this world represents all the statements that hold true in the actual world, that is, the world we have all come to know and love. A statement like (*)(B→(#)(C٨D) is true at world w^ if (B→(#)(C٨D) is true at every world w. Either B is false or, at some other world u, C and D are both true. We can calculate the truth value of (*)(B→(#)(C٨D) provided we know the truth values of sentences B, C, D in every world. Hence, we need a model (W,R,V) in which W is the set of possible worlds (including w^) and V is a specification of the truth values of all sentences at each w.

All this to say that what is necessary or possible may in fact depend on how the world actually is. Given the way things are, certain things may be possible that may not have been possible, had the world been a different way. An example may illustrate this somewhat better than clumsy natural language. I come from a particular sperm and egg. That is to say I come from S(1) and E(1). In a number of possible worlds I could have come from either a different S or a different E, but not a different S and a different E (S(1) and E(n) or S(n) and E(1) where n is any natural number greater than or equal to 2). This yields the following interpretations for:

S(1)E(2)
and
S(2)E(1),

where S(1)E(2) = same sperm different egg, call this world u, and
where S(1)E(2) = different sperm same egg, call this world v.

Thus it would seem that u and v are possible relatively to the actual world, but strangely enough, not possible relatively to each other. The reason for this is perhaps that if I had both a different sperm and a different egg, I would cease to be myself; identity would not hold. A question then arises: which worlds are possible relatively to each other? To determine relative possibility in a model (W,R,V), we identify R with a collection of pairs of the form (u, v) where each u and each v are in W. If a pair (u, v) is in R, then v is possible relatively to u. If (u, v) is not in R, v is impossible relatively to u.

A simpler yet much more lurid example involves a cat that a friend has you take care of for a weekend. If the cat dies, taking it to the vet will not help. The cat has passed from one state to another (living to dead) and presumably the process is asymmetrical, that is, as far as we can possibly know, for ordinary living things, the passage from life to death is a one-way street<<<You might as well cite Schrödinger!>>>. This is to say that given certain states of affairs, certain other states of affairs are not accessible. Put differently certain facts about states of affairs prevent or impede the creation of other states of affairs.

Let's play carpenter: First we get hammered... then I nail you!

Collections: Transformers (the toys), Swords & Medieval weaponry (temporarily out of my possession)

as usual for all TV series: eztv.it

hahah TRONBOOK :)

and YAHTZEE!!!

FTW = FAR TOO WOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAHHHHHWWWWWW !!!!!!!!!! :D

hahahah :)
that would explain the fake teeth!

lul :)

un beau cake marbré !

92$ at Psychonaut. Well, at this point, the difference is almost nothing...
Faut que jme trouve une tente et un lift, maintenant :)

Holala mon dieu ça va être beaucoup trop fort !!! :D

it's obviously photoshopped.

Does a bear crap in the woods? And does the pope crap on the broken lives and dreams of 200 deaf boys?

je sais, c'est pour ça jme suis pas encore lavé ni habillé ;)

whooooooooooooooooooooooooooottttttttttt !!!!!!!!!!
c'est bon Matante tu peux te prendre des vacances maintenant ;)
you just beat the final boss!

lol this should be in the WTF thread :)

bôôôô :)

asti Ugo s'est encore surpassé! :)

viiiiiiiive les vacaaaaaaaances euh
et les jours fériés !
touuuuuuuus les jours j'y peeeeeeeeeense euh
ça me fait rêver !

neurotiktak c'est bientôt wheeeeeeeeeeeeee :)

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY haaahhahahahahahhhh

"you should not drink and bake!"

hahah it was obvious but I listened to it anyway.
SO WORTH IT! :D

that's probably because the smell is quite similar :)

seriously laughed really hard with this episode :D


BUFFALO SOLDIER!!!!

- OMG Sharon you've got a scrotum coat?!
- Luckyyyyyyyy!!!

:)


spoiler alert


spoiler alert

spoiler alert


spoiler alert

spoiler alert


spoiler alert

spoiler alert


spoiler alert

spoiler alert


spoiler alert

spoiler alert


spoiler alert

c'est Léguman !

my point exactly!
and I love dubstep :)

une soirée dubstep à Paris :
[video]vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=10431189&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0& color=&fullscreen=1[/video]

je préfère largement les petites soirées comme à Montréal... plus ya de soirées, plus elles restent petites :)
plus de place, moins de hype, moins de connards... :D

I'm totally doing that if I ever get a girlfriend again :D