Quinten Vergeylen

I think you meant Q is dense in R

13.10.2025 19:47 — 👍 1    🔁 0    💬 1    📌 0

Natural Language Processing

29.08.2025 15:27 — 👍 2    🔁 0    💬 1    📌 0

I feel this in my soul

22.08.2025 19:29 — 👍 0    🔁 0    💬 0    📌 0

I think I understand, thanks!

14.08.2025 14:13 — 👍 1    🔁 0    💬 0    📌 0

Even if the forgoing analyses are correct, it is important to note that no argument has been given for the conclusion that no ontological argument can be successful. Even if all of the kinds of arguments produced to date are unsuccessful—i.e., not such as ought to give non-theists reason to accept the conclusion that God exists—it remains an open question whether there is some other kind of hitherto undiscovered ontological argument which does succeed. (Perhaps

It seems like this can be used to argue that any ontological argument contradicts itself, but the Stanford Encyclopedia claims no such argument has been found. Am I (a beginner in both logic and ontological arguments) misunderstanding? plato.stanford.edu/entries/onto...

14.08.2025 12:51 — 👍 1    🔁 0    💬 1    📌 0

The domain of f would give the shape of S wouldn't it? Maybe the question is more interesting if instead of f we are given h = f ∘ c where c : [0, 1] → ∂S is a parametrisation of ∂S.

07.08.2025 10:17 — 👍 1    🔁 0    💬 1    📌 0