I have a few pages of house keeping to do before we move on to the next scene and chapter. This isn’t like Kung-Fu theater where the bad guy gasps his last and they roll credits literally 2 seconds after the hero slumps to the ground, exhausted but elated that he’s finally avenged his father and/or master. We won’t linger long though, just want to hit some important notes first. Notes like the girls making jokes about shirtless boys. I figure it was time to balance the scales a bit – not that there’s a direct male equivalent to “girl in corset jumping rope” of course, but it’s something.

There’s been a lot of speculation on how to incarcerate Vehemence. Obviously you couldn’t throw him in general pop or even some a moderately populated super prison since the first riot and he’d be off, and they already know he can start them. I’ll touch on it later, and also maybe cover the fact that Dabbler did stuff to make sure he hadn’t banked a ton of energy or anything, but I’ll leave it at “really really really tied up” for now.

Dabbler will eventually share the story of her arrival on Earth and such, but that’s for the next book.

Oh and I somehow forgot to use a scratchy font for Maxima on the last page, I’ll eventually fix that, but her voice won’t be all “unbelievably strong guy tried to crush my windpipe” forever.

Here’s the link to the new comments highlighter for chrome, and the GitHub link which you can use to install on FireFox via Greasemonkey.

Dabbers corset is made out of the same stuff as those bandages.

Is it just me, or does this place NEED a reddit-like comment collapse system?

The Disqus system would work.

Whoa, lotta responses to my previous post. So to hopefully clear up any confusion:

On my 2nd post: When I mentioned that there are probabilistic analogs to the deductive inference methods that I gave examples of in my first post, and said that those analog methods “worked” under uncertainty, I should add that those methods do not Prove their conclusions, but Evidence them; the distinction being that proof renders a statement certain, while evidence renders it more plausible.

For probabilistic Modus Tollens: Intuitively, we suspect that if B is probable given A, then given the improbability of B (Aka the probability of not A), then we conclude that A is improbable (notA is probable).

An example would be if you live with a dog in the house, and the dog usually (but not always) barks if someone is at the door. So if you don’t hear the dog barking, then you can conclude that there’s probably (but not certainly) noone at the door. The easiest way to prove this probabilistic inference rule (and many other inference rules) is via venn diagrams.

So, in conclusion, guilty or not guilty?

@Oberon

Oberon, I think there may have been a misunderstanding. I’m not claiming that there aren’t any negatives that can’t be proven, I’m simply saying that there are negatives that can be proven.

First off, to avoid confusion over the whole “positive/negative” hangup, whether a proposition is positive or negative doesn’t really matter. Any negative proposition can be turned into a positive (& vice versa).

An example is the sentence, “This chair is not comfy.” This is equivalent to saying “This chair is uncomfortable.” (itself a positive assertion). So more generally we’re talking about propositions, rather than just positives or negatives.

So more generally, what I am claiming is that there do exist provable propositions. What I am not claiming, is that ALL propositions are provable; or equivalently, that there are no unprovable propositions. That would be a foolish thing for me to claim, as the logician Godel has already shown that unprovable propositions do exist.

Take for example the proposition, “This statement is unprovable.” Think about it for a while. You will find that if a proof of its truth can be generated, or if a disproof (that is a proof of its falsity) can be generated, then a contradiction will result. In order for the logical system to stay consistent, it must be unable to generate a proof or disproof of that statement. (But if there are any cartoon robots here, don’t think about it, the paradox might cause your computers to overheat and explode =P ).

So in summary, or for the TLDR’s:

I agree that there exist unprovable propositions. What I am saying is that there are also provable propositions too.

Hmm, all of my replies seem to be ending up at the end also. Maybe a problem with my browser?

Wait, that one worked. ??

You know what would be awesome, in some strange and twisted turnaround, Sydney becomes friends with Vehemence in jail.

V: There’s no reason we can’t be friends.

S: You tried to kill Maxima, and turned a bunch of supers into villains to nearly kill us.

V: Well you did crush my throat and drown me afterwards, and I am going to spend the rest of my life here.

S: Touche.

Spoiler: look around the DA site… :)

Another reminder that women have shite taste in men.

Gee, thanks.