Deeper than primes - Continuation

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
Once again, according to the reductionist reasoning of the traditional mathematicians here, the whole is a sum of parts, no matter if these parts appear as a living organism (in that case we deal with the whole concept) or a set of quantified chemical elements, which are closed in separate boxes (in that case we deal with the sum concept).

Whole and sum are not the same concept, simply because the whole has a quality that can't be quantified, as can be done with the sum concept, but reductionist minds are too weak in order to comprehend that (for example, to know the qualitative difference between a living organism and a pizza).

If one counts the quality of the whole, then one may say that the whole is more than the sum of given parts, but by doing it, this one actually measures quality in terms of quantity, and as a result one actually misses the quality of the whole, which can't be defined in terms of sum.
Click to expand...


No idea what you're talking about.

Now, about those results that you can produce with OM: care to share?
 
doronshadmi said:
Once again, according to the reductionist reasoning of the traditional mathematicians here, the whole is a sum of parts, no matter if these parts appear as a living organism
Click to expand...

Yes.

Calling something "living" may invoke magic in your world, it does not in mine.

to know the qualitative difference between a living organism and a pizza
Click to expand...

Is perfectly possible with redunctionist reasoning.

If one counts the quality of the whole, then one may say that the whole is more than the sum of given parts, but by doing it, this one actually measures quality in terms of quantity, and as a result one actually misses the quality of the whole, which can't be defined in terms of sum.
Click to expand...

Your verbal_symbolic skills fail you again.
 
For reductionists living organism in terms of whole appears as some kind of magic, because they tend to force quantification on everything and by doing that they simply miss the natural difference between whole and sum.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
For reductionists living organism in terms of whole appears as some kind of magic, because they tend to force quantification on everything and by doing that they simply miss the natural difference between whole and sum.
Click to expand...

Ah, it's that reading comprehension thing again, isn't it? You really need to work on that, Doron. You are missing 95% of the conversation.
 
To know the qualitative difference between a living organism and a pizza "Is perfectly possible with redunctionist reasoning" exactly as some reductionist "enables" to know the difference between a living organism (in that case we deal with the whole concept) and a set of quantified chemical elements, which are closed in separate boxes (in that case we deal with the sum concept).

In other words, reductionists have no point about the considered subject, exactly because they get everything only in terms of sum, which is a quantitative-only concept.

Once again, quantitative-only reasoning is too weak in order to naturally deal with a qualitative concept like whole, and as a result reductionists force concepts like "magic" on quality exactly because they have no access to deal with it unless it is quantified.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
To know the qualitative difference between a living organism and a pizza "Is perfectly possible with redunctionist reasoning" exactly as some reductionist "enables" to know the difference between a living organism (in that case we deal with the whole concept) and a set of quantified chemical elements, which are closed in separate boxes (in that case we deal with the sum concept).
Click to expand...

Yeah. It's pretty easy.

In other words, reductionists have no point about the considered subject, exactly because they get everything only in terms of sum, which is a quantitative-only concept.
Click to expand...

As opposed to "whole" which is somehow a poorly defined completely different thing I assume can only be understood fully by nasal reasoning.

Once again, quantitative-only reasoning is too weak in order to naturally deal with a qualitative concept like whole, and as a result reductionists force concepts like "magic" on quality exactly because they have no access to deal with it unless it is quantified.
Click to expand...

No, dealing with "whole" is really easy. It's making "whole" devoid of "parts" which makes a mockery out of things.
 
doronshadmi said:
Once again, according to the reductionist reasoning of the traditional mathematicians here, the whole is a sum of parts, no matter if these parts appear as a living organism (in that case we deal with the whole concept) or a set of quantified chemical elements, which are closed in separate boxes (in that case we deal with the sum concept).

Whole and sum are not the same concept, simply because the whole has a quality that can't be quantified, as can be done with the sum concept, but reductionist minds are too weak in order to comprehend that (for example, to know the qualitative difference between a living organism and a pizza).
Click to expand...
You never mentioned the whole in connection with a living organism (a biochemical structure capable of replicating itself.) And so, according to one of your previous conclusions,
The phrase "... some folks may become aware of the possibility that both lines featuring identities (implied by the presence of symbol '=' ) are related." is exactly the limited awareness, which according to it the whole is a sum of given parts.
Click to expand...
the folks in question had to be deceased for me not to suffer from the limited awareness. BTW, why do you keep reducing full sentences into phrases?
But I believe that it was one of your brain skills that provides your mind with unlimited awareness
The phrase "... some folks may become aware of the possibility that both lines featuring identities (implied by the presence of symbol '=' ) are related." is exactly the limited awareness, which according to it the whole is a sum of given parts.
Click to expand...
that accidentally misapplied the symbol '=' to establish identity between SOME and SUM, because upon pronunciation, both words sound the same. But those two words do have a different meaning - trust me. Why would I sum some folks?

Anyway... I expected that Giuseppe would give me a discount on that sliced pizza, but since he is not an experimental mathematician/ philosopher, he politely inquired about my intention to negotiate a discount. So I told him: If the whole pizza cost $12, then that sliced pizza must cost less, because cutting 12 into parts (there can be only two in this case) yields parts 1 and 2. Adding these parts together yields

1 + 2 = 3

and since the sum of the parts; that is 3, is less than 12, I should pay only $3 for that sliced pizza.
Q.E.D.

But Giuseppe proved to be a shrewd businessman, and so he countered to his own advantage: If the whole pizza cost twelve dollars and you slice it into two parts, then you get parts twe and lve. Adding both parts together yields

twe + lve = ?

That's an open question, which can be only closed by substituting the letters with numbers, like in algebra. And to make things fair and square, Giuseppe suggested to use the alphabetical order of letters and put that idea on a piece of paper.

(twe + lve) = (20235 + 12225) = 32460

But I said onto him: Giuseppe, mamamia, you got the nerves to charge me $32,460 for a pizza? That pizza would have to be the size of St. Peter's Square!

"Axioms are axioms," goes Giuseppe onto me.

And so we finally agreed on the initial prize of the whole pizza.
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
Results, Doron, where are they?
Click to expand...

They are here for all to see. Without OM and Doron's particular (peculiar?) communication skills, do you suppose a thread of this length could be maintained without making any progress whatsoever for so long?

Together, Doron and OM's combination of the rational and the irrational, the logical and the illogical, have produced a black hole of reason, a rhetorical structure of never-ending, but constantly repeating circular argument, a transfinite thread, an irrational numberwang. A thread that constantly swallows its own tail, where all meaning is lost. This is the set of all sets of posts on this thread that refer to themselves, and I'm proud to be a contributor with a self-referential post of my own.

This is truly OM's great achievement, and we should thank Doron for making it possible.
 
If you accept the God of Reason as your only god, then some of your ideas may perish, beheaded by sword-wielding archangels Evidence and Proof.

So I better accept other god than that.

That wouldn't guarantee immortality for your brainwork, though. Ideas are like living things: they need water to support their existence and from time to time they must go and drink from the Wells of Acceptance.

Oh, I see.

No, you don't. Ideas can also sustain themselves by eating from the Tree of Rejection, and since he who has the last word seems to have also the sharpest sword, the Tree keeps growing fruit.

Wow! That's deeper than primes.

Huh?

I mean like Acceptance and Rejection are opposites, like 7 and 13 who bicker all the time about what is lucky and what is unlucky. But they are made of the same dough: they are both prime numbers.

Hm. That comparison ushers in a question regarding what are Acceptance and Rejection made of. If we let A stand for Acceptance and R for Rejection, and A&R = AR, then AR should be the first two letters of the word "argument."

Or the word "artists."

Why would that word be "artists?"

Well, like some artists who get rejected when they are alive and accepted - sometimes big time - when they are dead. It immediately follows that the atheists will never get the chance to accept your existence, Heavenly Father, because you're immortal.

But I'm not a painter!!!!

And who said that you are??????????

(Hahaha. Here we go again...)
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
Funny how you snipped my question.
Click to expand...


Wrong zooterkin.

By your reductionist approach the researcher does not have any impact on the results, or in other words, it is not funny at all how a reductionist like you snipping form any responsibility of some results.

As long as you simply ignore http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8572241&postcount=1906 you choose to snip from my results.

zooterkin said:
Results, Doron, where are they?
Click to expand...

For example, please use your reasoning in order to reply in details to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8495741&postcount=1802 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8545297&postcount=1878.

If you can't do that, you are simply snipping my results ( here is a concrete example of your basic attitude in this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8421609&postcount=1634 ).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
dlorde, being a flatterer of the main stream gets you nowhere about the considered subject.
Click to expand...
I paddled around in this thread much further upstream. Since then little has changed, except that it's become a little murkier and more opaque.

When you're going nowhere slowly, sometimes a sense of humour helps ;)
 
dlorde said:
They are here for all to see.
Click to expand...

doronshadmi said:
dlorde, being a flatterer of the main stream gets you nowhere about the considered subject.
Click to expand...

:) That's a genius solution: Since ALL heavily implies plural, the word "mainstream" gets torn asunder to satisfy the quantifier for all. And then...:jaw-dropp the proof that the whole isn't the sum of its parts naturally follows:

main + stream = mainstream?

Use the method regula falsi that detects possible A AND notA:

auxiliary - steam(complete-to-incomplete) = maertsniam

Q.E.D.
 
1025pope.jpg


Never ask for a miracle on an empty stomach.

doronshadmi said:
Whole and sum are not the same concept, simply because the whole has a quality that can't be quantified, as can be done with the sum concept, but reductionist minds are too weak in order to comprehend that (for example, to know the qualitative difference between a living organism and a pizza).
Click to expand...

That may be true, but the point is that they also deliver.
 
dlorde said:
Together, Doron and OM's combination of the rational and the irrational, the logical and the illogical,
Click to expand...
Simply wrong.

The irrational is exactly the mainstream argument about the equality between the level of some set and the level of some member of that given set.

As a result we get a paradox, and this paradox is used as a fundamental tool in order to prove things by contradiction.

But this contradiction is simply the weakness of verbal_symbolic-only reductionist reasoning, which leads to unnecessary paradoxes and unnecessary results, which are derived from them.

Collections are simply irreducible into NOthing (that has no predecessor) AND non-extensible into YESthing (that has no successor), which provides a naturally entropic-free (abstract or non-abstract) realm.

In this realm the developer is responsible to the results of its developments, which are derived from its skills to be a self-aware factor of the naturally entropic-free (abstract or non-abstract) realm.

Once again, self aware living creatures are exactly the way of the universe to be aware of itself during an ever finer development that is derived from whole (objective aspect)\parts (subjective aspect) relations, where these relations among the Whole\parts polychotomy is possible because of the thing, which is the Unity among this polychotomy.

thing is rigorously defined by using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial brain skills, in http://www.scribd.com/doc/97823738/Unity-Awarness.

Varbal_symbolic-only reasoning, which is used by the mainstream of the mathematicians, is too weak in order to deal with http://www.scribd.com/doc/97823738/Unity-Awarness and http://www.scribd.com/doc/98276640/Umes.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
thing is rigorously defined by using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial brain skills, in http://www.scribd.com/doc/97823738/Unity-Awarness.
Click to expand...
Your claim that thing is rigorously defined in the treaty that you provided the link to is the biggest blunder in non-mainstream mathematics in the history of this progressive auxiliary field, as the situation in the lower-left corner documents.

thinge.jpg


By using the spacial-visual brain skills, we can see what the hilarious blunder is made of:

mirrorerror.jpg


Claiming rigor while leaving a blank space where the defining term for the thing should have been is a manifesto of a person who probably suffers from advanced catatonic divulsion in the cranial area.

Fortunately for this world, the omission is not a fatal error, because the reader can readily supply the correct defining term by using the Reuben-Mattlung theorem of similarity

ERROR ~~ MIRROR

and define the thing in a sec.

mirrstand.jpg


Looking at the picture, one can become increasingly suspicious about the writer not exactly mastering the aspects of non-mainstream mathematics, because a part of the rigorous definition of THING is based on Haldemann equation.

THING = ?

Since the closest letter to the symbol for identity "=" is G, the interim solution takes advantage of the following partial identity.

THIN[G = G]

The next closest letter to "=" is N. That letter gets copied too and is subsequently also placed on the right side next to G.

THI[NG = GN]

Left and right are opposites, so are together and apart. It follows that if THING on the left side are letters placed together, GN on the right side must be placed apart. (This adjustment is called the Kursky Spread after Russian non-mainstream mathematician Mikchail Kursky.)

THING = G____N

Filling the space between G and N in a rigorous manner is a piece of cake: just recall the epix series of Zeta numbers.

Yes, the thing is defined GREEN and not BLUE, as you embarrassingly use the wrong color in your seminal work. What kind of non-mainstream mathematician are you?
:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
The last reply shows how by using verbal_symbolic-only reasoning, one does not understand ( () ) and as a result this one can't distinguish between the outer () that notates YESthing, the void between the outer () that "notates" NOthing and the internal () that notates members (SOMEthing and EVERYthing), which are irreducible into NOthing AND non-extensible into YESthing, where ___ that notates thing is the unity among NO,SOME,EVERY,YES ploychotomy.

In must be also stressed that void () and blank ( ) between "(" and ")", are not the same (blank is used to notate the irreducibility into NOthing AND non-extensibility into YESthing of given member(s)).

So
mirrstand.jpg

is a verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial gibberish of verbal_symbolic-only reasoning.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The last reply shows how by using verbal_symbolic-only reasoning, one does not understand ( () ) and as a result this one can't distinguish between the outer () that notates YESthing, the void between the outer () that "notates" NOthing and the internal () that notates members (SOMEthing and EVERYthing), which are irreducible into NOthing AND non-extensible into YESthing, where ___ that notates thing is the unity among NO,SOME,EVERY,YES ploychotomy.
Click to expand...
Um, it's not that difficult to form an association between those four items of your choice; that is

NO SOME EVERY YES = ( () )

You have four words linked to four parentheses. There is no problem with the outer items on both sides

NO SOME EVERY YES = ( () ).

because left and right are opposites and so are no and yes. That means the left outer parenthesis applies to NO and the right outer parenthesis applies to YES. (The Concordance of opposites theorem).

There is a problem though with the inner quantifiers SOME and EVERY. Those quantifiers are linked to the left and to the right inner parentheses and therefore both quantifiers should be opposites as well. There is seemingly no problem with that at all, because NOT EVERY resolves into SOME. (Not every person in the world speaks Russian, but some do.) However, the reverse, which must be included in mathematical logic to assure required consistency, is troublesome: does NOT SOME resolve into EVERY? (Not some people in the world speak Russian. It follows that everyone does. :confused:) You can force the resolution through the application of axiomatic reciprocity, but that would obscure the view for every reader/student who is eager to learn where to apply Organic Mathematics to its best potential.

The traditional mathematics uses quantifier ALL and its implied opposite NOT ALL instead of EVERY and SOME to avoid reciprocal inconsistency that would make the proof impossible to achieve. (Either all people speak Russian or not all people speak Russian - and there is no other way. If there was, the proof by contradiction would be rendered useless.)

However, the traditional set theory sucks and Russell's paradox popularly rendered by the story of the barber is a prime example. There have been many small towns in America with only one barber shop, but no one has ever noticed anything funny. That's because traditional set theory is a universe for itself and unlike Organic Mathematics, it cannot be applied in everyday life in terms of life's improvement. In our kitchens, bedrooms, living rooms, even in our bathrooms, we frequently use the words SOME and EVERY. But in the mathematical perspective, both words turned quantifiers are like wild mustangs and therefore must be tamed to serve their purpose. Here is the outline how to lasso both quantifiers:

We know that EVERY links itself to the theorem of completeness and SOME to the axiom of choice.

Every: ORGANIC MATHEMATICS
Some: ?

In the case of Every, every letter is present in the name of the new, promising field of mathematical study. (Completeness.) However, in the case of Some, the inclusion is an open question. (Choice.) Obviously, the traditional set theorist would compare the name to a set of letters and would include only those letters that don't repeat themselves.

Every: ORGANIC MATHEMATICS
Some: ORGANIC MTHES

But we can't have the traditional guy messing with stuff like that. Enough is enough! Instead, we will use tentatively the elusive and yet unproven Theorem of natural incompleteness to squeeze the juice out of Some

Every: ORGANIC MATHEMATICS
Some: ORGANI MATHE

and focus on the second incomplete Some-expression MATHE.

What is MATHE?

Since the expression strongly implies the word "mathematics," we render the question in the symbolic way.

MATHE = ?

It takes only one character to replace the question mark to obtain an arbitrary definition. We can choose the character according to The first-born inherits the throne theorem and transfer the first letter M to the right to replace the question mark.

ATHE = M

Now it takes only the basic verbal_symbolic brain skills to switch from symbolic to verbal by using the binding template

Symbolic: 1 + 1 = 2
Verbal: one and one is two

It follows that

Symbolic: ATHE = M
Verbal: ATHE IS M

It's easy to see now how the new logically derived word ATHEISM completes the Some-expression ORGANI:

ORGANI(ZED) ATHEISM

Yes, Organic Mathematics is applicable and will become an indispensable tool for turning organized atheism into a legitimate mathematical field, where

G0D = not GOD

will become the Principle Axiom of Irreversible Choice.
 
Last edited:
Consistency and completeness are two major requirements for building a structure in which mathematical proofs are manufactured. Building such a structure is no easy undertaking, as we find out right below. One wrong thought... and the roof collapses.
doronshadmi said:
The last reply shows how by using verbal_symbolic-only reasoning, one does not understand ( () ) and as a result this one can't distinguish between the outer () that notates YESthing, the void between the outer () that "notates" NOthing and the internal () that notates members (SOMEthing and EVERYthing), which are irreducible into NOthing AND non-extensible into YESthing, where ___ that notates thing is the unity among NO,SOME,EVERY,YES ploychotomy.
Click to expand...
We see that ( () ) is a symbolic statement made of two pairs of external and internal parentheses. The symbolism is defined as

( () ) = NO SOME EVERY YES

Many structural engineers have developed a hunch - a feeling of uneasiness just by looking at a blueprint drawn by an irresponsible designer. What the intuition tells us in this case?

External Part: ( () ) = NO SOME EVERY YESInternal Part: ( () ) = NO SOME EVERY YES

There is nothing wrong with the external part: According to

Left is to Right as No is to Yes

we see that the definition of the left and right external parentheses is structurally sound. But the internal part suffers from a major flaw - we will not find a logical correspondence.

External is to Answers as Internal is to Questions

After showing that NO and YES are quite frequent answers, SOME and EVERY must be questions. Are they? Apparently not, because the "supporting beams" are missing. So let's add them to the definition.

( () ) = NO SOME? EVERY? YES

Unfortunately that only partially solves the problem, because

() = SOME? EVERY?

Unlike YES and NO, which are undisputable opposites, SOME and EVERY are very questionable (note the question marks) opposites - the dictionary of antonyms supports the notion.

The second edition of this thread is already almost 2000 replies tall and if that building goes down...

There is a way though to fix things by redefinition and make things safe for the visitors: External = Exterior, Internal = Interior.

According to the redefinition, SOME? and EVERY? now apply just to the interior decorating and if some and every do not exist as opposites, but are willfully included in the design, then the interior decorating would reflect upon the fact and the mathematical logic is thereby preserved to protect and serve.
 
The interpretation of ( () ) as NO SOME EVERY YES = ( () ) is a good example of the flat reasoning of one who uses verbal_symbolic-only brain skills.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The interpretation of ( () ) as NO SOME EVERY YES = ( () ) is a good example of the flat reasoning of one who uses verbal_symbolic-only brain skills.
Click to expand...
One just eats what is being served.

NO SOME EVERY YES are words
( () ) are symbols

Through the detour wordEng = verbumLat, the bus stoped at the preordained terminal.

It's too bad to learn that in what seems to be the only rational assignment in your proposition

( ) = NO YES

the correspondence of opposites is purely coincidental and therefore unintended, because the widely used proof by contradiction heavily relies on the existence of well-defined opposites, so that True and False could take over. For example, when you want to prove or disprove the existence of God, you need to deploy opposites.

"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."
Revelation 1:8

(His Wise Ass in the Heavens understand these things very well. The same cannot be said of the agnostics, though.)

But we must submerge ourselves into the pool of completeness and consistency of Organic Mathematics and in case we develop difficulty in understanding the flat, verbal_symbolic-only definitions, such as
doronshadmi said:
( () ) = strict membership

( ()() ) = non-strict membership
Click to expand...
we ask an additional question in hope that the powerful spatial_visual brain skills contribute to the answer.

( ()()() ) = ? membership
 
In order to really use sarcasm or parody of a given subject, one has to understand this subject.

This is not the case with this one or with the one who wrote "You understand neither sarcasm nor parody."

"One just eats what is being served", and in this case there are fallows here who like to eat their ignorance and scratch each other backs of the considered subject all along this thread.

Still afraid to get out of your box.
cat-in-a-box.jpg

( http://thebsreport.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/cat-in-a-box.jpg?w=500&h=375 )
Isn't it ?

-----------

An expression like "( ()() ) = non-strict membership" is a generalization of non-strict membership, which easily understood by anyone that enables to use his\her verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial brain skills.

This not the case about the one who wrote "( ()()() ) = ? membership".

-----------

Please look at this phrase: "No, dealing with "whole" is really easy. It's making "whole" devoid of "parts" which makes a mockery out of things."

In this case one does not understand that the mockery is the attempt to define the whole in terms of collection of parts.

No wonder that this one simply can't deduce Whole\parts relation, exactly because by his\her reasoning the whole = sum of parts.

This one simply summarizes the number of hands in the following picture
images

( http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSuZPX5HPbXc-g_87RzBE0a8HUIfa5nJK8KVkBK4ohvW9kmt120 )
by ignoring the qualitative whole that is derived from the cooperation among these hands.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
.
[qimg]http://thebsreport.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/cat-in-a-box.jpg?w=500&h=375[/qimg]
( http://thebsreport.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/cat-in-a-box.jpg?w=500&h=375 )

An expression like "( ()() ) = non-strict membership" is a generalization of non-strict membership, which easily understood by anyone that enables to use his\her verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial brain skills.
Click to expand...
Aha. It's really true that having command over those visual_spatial brain skills pays for the ticket to Stockholm.

cat1br.jpg


This not the case about the one who wrote "( ()()() ) = ? membership".
Click to expand...

I can understand the definition now:

( (C)(A)(T) ) = feline membership

Actually I'm not sure about the T, because it is not a traditional note. But it can be some advanced, organ note, right?

 
Last edited:
Again, in order to really use sarcasm or parody of a given subject, one has to understand this subject.

This is not the case with the pathetic flatterer "clown" of the main stream, which force verbal_symbolic-only brain skills on verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial brain skills.

In this case the pathetic flatterer "clown" of the main stream has totally missed nasal reasoning:
7984928611_dbf85e2b16.jpg

Shame on you pathetic flatterer "clown" of the main stream.

----------------

Unfortunately http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8600097&postcount=1935 reflects the attitude of the posters of this thread about Organic Mathematics.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
In this case the pathetic flatterer "clown" of the main stream has totally missed nasal reasoning:
7984928611_dbf85e2b16.jpg

Shame on you pathetic flatterer "clown" of the main stream.
Click to expand...
The fatal miss wasn't due to the weak olphactory reasoning; it can be solely blamed on a rapidly developing CATaract.
 
Once again the "clown" is not a factor of its obsolete jokes like traditional mathematicians, which still afraid to get out of their box and be a factor of their reasoning (unfortunately responsibility is not one of the fundamental properties of their work):
[qimg]http://thebsreport.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/cat-in-a-box.jpg?w=500&h=375[/qimg]
( http://thebsreport.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/cat-in-a-box.jpg?w=500&h=375 )
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom