From: ruffrecords@yahoo.com   
      
   Ian Iveson wrote:   
   > "Ian Bell"  wrote in message   
   > news:i8ihhm$22o$1@localhost.localdomain...   
   >> Ian Iveson wrote:   
   >>> "Ian Bell"   wrote in message   
   >>> news:i8ht7c$rqi$1@localhost.localdomain...   
   >>>> Ian Iveson wrote:   
   >>>>> Ian wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>> An open circuit represents zero load, right? So a   
   >>>>>>> high   
   >>>>>>> load   
   >>>>>>> resistance is a low load.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Moot. An open circuit implies 'no' load which could   
   >>>>>> equally imply infinite resistance.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Why moot? No load = infinite resistance is the limiting   
   >>>>> condition of what I said: a high load resistance is a   
   >>>>> low   
   >>>>> load.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Ian   
   >>>>>   
   >>>   
   >>>> Moot because zero is not equal to infinity.   
   >>>   
   >>> A nonsequiter, surely? Neither of our propositions claims   
   >>> or   
   >>> comes anywhere near implying that it is. Any statement   
   >>> that   
   >>> were to claim so would be not just moot, but clearly   
   >>> false.   
   >>>   
   >>> I'm saying that zero is the limiting condition of low.   
   >>> Infinity is the limiting condition of high. I assume that   
   >>> you agree. Where, exactly, in our sequence of logical   
   >>> ruminations above, do you detect a difference between us?   
   >>>   
   >>> Ian   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> OK. You said   
   >>   
   >> "   
   >> Zero is the limiting condition of low.   
   >>   
   >> An open circuit is zero load   
   >>   
      
   An open circuit (A) is zero load (B)   
      
   A = B   
      
   >> No (zero) load is infinite resistance   
   >   
      
   No (zero) load (B) is infinite resistance (C)   
      
   B = C   
      
   > OK so far. I said those things.   
   >   
   >> Therefore zero = infinity   
   >   
      
   Therefore A = C   
      
   QED   
      
   Cheers   
      
   ian   
   > er...why? Wiki is quite good, but long-winded, on   
   > syllogisms. I don't think you'll find that one in the list   
   > of valid forms. I don't think you can rip nouns out, willy   
   > nilly, with impunity.   
   >   
   >> QED   
   >   
   > or not   
   >   
   >>   
   >> Cheers   
   >>   
   >> Ian   
   >>   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)