Excuse me? I spend time discussing in detail the wonders of complex analysis, and your response is to treat this as some sort of personal attack?
This has to be a first, even by the usual standards applicable to the output of pedlars of ex recto apologetics.
Did I burst your complacent, self-centred little bubble with inconvenient facts? Boo fucking hoo.
Here’s a clue for you, sunshine. Ideas are a free-fire zone for whatever discoursive ordnance is brought to bear thereupon, to determine whether or not those ideas are good or bad. If you don’t realise this, despite billing yourself as “Philosopher”, then you might want to look for a more appropriate label.
It’s hilarious being accused of discoursive dishonesty, by someone who treated an exposition of complex analysis as a personal attack.
This is going to be good …
First of all, I’d like you to define the term “semantically inconsistent”, because I suspect you don’t know what this actually means. Given the manifest problems you have already demonstrated with elementary concepts, not to mention your frankly bizarre response to a proper exposition thereof, I suspect you don’t know what this term actually means.
Upon receipt of a properly constituted definition of that term, I’ll be more than happy to answer your question, because I actually understand the relevant concepts. Whether you will understand my answer, of course, remains to be seen.
Whoopee. Want a cookie for stating the blatantly obvious?
Let’s see if you know what the question you posed is actually asking first, shall we? You see, I’m familiar with pedlars of ex recto apologetics asking questions, then upon receipt of a substantive answer, shifting the goalposts to avoid facing the implications of said substantive answer for their apologetics. The reputation of your ilk has preceded you in this vein.