Is there anyone to refute these term definitions?

Question

1. Divisibility - the property of being divisible, the ability to be divided.
2. Comparability - the property of being comparable, the ability to be compared.
3. Connectivity - the property of being connectable, the ability to be connected.
4. Disturbability - the property of being disturbable, the ability to be disturbed.
5. Reorderability - the property of being reorderable, the ability to be reordered.
6. Substituability - the property of being substitutable, the ability to be substituted.
7. Satisfiability - the property of being satisfiable, the ability to be satisfied.

Answer 1

Please define 'foolhardy insanity'....... it is a very specific attribute of a rare breed of people, fortunately very few!! I am a bit confused whether being foolhardy is insane or being insane makes one foolhardy!!

Answer 2

If divisibility is a property, how can it be an ability and viceversa?

If comparability is a property, how can it be an ability and viceversa?

If connectivity is a property, how can it be an ability and viceversa?

If disturbability is a property how can it be an ability viceversa?

If reorderability is a property, how can it be an ability and viceversa?

If substituability is a property, how can it be an ability and viceversa?

If satisfiability is a property, how can it be an ability and viceversa?

Answer 3

Probably not, but just because you combined a root word and a suffix to make up your own words does NOT mean that the words have any valid applications, are fundamental properties of all things, or anything else.



All you have done is used semantic rules to make up new words. Anyone can do it.

Watch this:

coldability: the ability to be made cold

uncoldability: the ability to be made warm

submarinability: the ability to go beneath the water

See, it's not hard.



However, make no mistake, the words still have no application to any fundamental, inherent, metaphysical meaning of nature or reality.

Answer 4

Does "refute" mean to fute again?

I see no refutability in your questions.





Would a penguin be the "King of Justice"?

(king of just ice)

Answer 5

only Kant, Hegel, jean Paul Sartre can refute those term definitions.

where is the necessity to refute those terms when they are cent percent correct?

Answer 6

Impossibility is answering such questions.

Are you thank able for the two points I get ?

Answer 7

Yeah, there's probably someone to refute them.

Answer 8

i refute the fact that you stopped your list at seven...

come on now...

where's your imaginationity? (is that a word?)





lol :)

Answer 9

yep, right after YOU refute determinism . . . . . you go first.

Answer 10

Good.

Answer 11

no