Is age a mark of maturity?

[Baylan]

Ok, I know I shouldn't have butted in.. but now that I'm in the conversation.

Actually I didnt use a geometric proof on "the human psyche. That would be a rather fantastic undertaking ifit achieved even the slightest useful result.

*looks back at Ghostiger's posts earlier*

Maturity is a measure of devopement.
Development is a a function of time.
Age is a measure of time.

Thus - Maturity is a mark of age.

Age is not a mark of maturity.

I'm studying geometry right now, this is essentially a geometric proof in verbal form.

If M = Maturity, and D = Development, and A = The measure of time (age)...

Statements | Reasons

A -> D | Given
D -> M | Given
A -> M | (Forget the exact conjecture, I believe it is the congruency/equality conjecture?)

Therefor, if A increases, then M must increase. Or "Thus - Maturity is a mark of age." This is just a geometric proof in a different form.

I used the proof with some rather basic definitions of words. The geomtric figure never was used to actually tell anything about a human. It was a place holder.

Hmmm, ok, the geometric figure never was used to actually tell anything about a human. It was a place holder. That is a valid point, however you caused ambiguity with your statement as follows:

If a person was an equation of a geometric shape(a simple closed equation with several variables all positive).

By this, and your previous post, I was assuming that you were attempting to define a person to a geometric shape - your right, it would be an enormous undertaking and would be an extremely thought-inducing and intellectually stimulating process, but flawed in its essence because there are variables in a human being that cannot be measured, cannot be compared, and cannot be assumed. Your geometric figure was merely a 'visual' representation of the geometric proof that you offered up earlier in the thread.

For your final statement in reply to me... as quoted from the original post.

Honestly, your lapse in understanding here is rather large, you need to read and consider more carefully.

I believe that I've proved my point, and that YOUR lapse in understanding here should force you to read and consider more carefully before flaming someone who has replied to your post. I wasn't flaming, I was merely trying to point out the apparent, and inherent flaw in your logic.

Thanks *puts on flame-proof suit*

Baylan