You: (A),

me: (B),

us: (A) ∪ (B),

we: ((A) = (B)) & ((A) ∪ (B)),

it’s getting weird: (((A) = (B)) & ((B) = (A))) & ((A) ∪ (B)),

fate to be determined: (((A) = (B)) & ((B) = (A))) & (((A) ∪ (B)) = ((B) ∪ (A))).

[arriving at a logical conclusion: (((A) ∪ (B)) & ((B) ∪ (A))) & (((A) = (B)) & ((B) = (A)))

{which dulls the point to the permutations of: (((B) ∪ (A)) & ((A) ∪ (B))) & (((B) = (A)) & ((A) = (B)))}]

Is our mutual fate to be determinered? If I were to have any say in the matter, I would ask that we all keep it pre-weird. Pre-we, even. It’s easier that way. I like us, (Undeterminered) =|= (Undefined), and thence, not terminated, where the proposed operator [=|=] can be used, when(A) and (B) not = (0), as

- ((A) =|= (B)) =
- (Is it true that (A) and (B) are the same, or what?) =
- ((A) is possibly the same as (B).) =
- (I think (A) and (B) are the same but I have to find out with covariably moving operating elements.) =
- ((c)[dulls](B)[from](A)[due to](b)), with (b) ∈ (B) only becoming an operant element (c) ∈ (B) once the possibly offendingly nullificatory operative element (b) is sufficiently known to be described with (c) being placed in quantity (B).

- (determinered),

is not solely restricted to

- (A mathematical definitional tool used to perform set operations),

thereby necessitating a linguistic delineation for each possible definition. We may relate each definition to

- (A),
- (B),
- …,

each definition imbued with semantic meaning, in order to create a variable set notation for each possible reading. Each reading can be said to consist of subset morphemes, respectively

- (a1, a2, …),
- (b1, b2, …),
- (…),

- (A) | (B)

- (termination)

or

- (continuation)

or

- (made into a mathematically defined quantity using set theory),

- What to do with one of the many logic-thread return operation endpoints of a single subroutine of an asynchronous multi-routine software program, running on an independently-operated computational processing terminal, wired as a node of a distributed, multi-device, multi-frequency computer processing network’s transmission network, linked with a second, differently-schemed and operated network, within a continuously unifying and disparately refreshing computing framework, returns a variantly true logical value? (Edit 03/18/2014: See also: http://recode.net/2014/03/18/microsoft-researcher-wins-nobel-prize-of-computer-science/)
- Balancing an ecosystem of animals and plants containing multiple species that possess varying predators, prey, reproduction rates with a single new species whose interactions must be compared to each member species of the existing ecosystem before its impact on the entire system can be projected, while territorial, predatory, and sexual interactions are already taking place, and projections indicate will continue to impact the ecosystem chaotically, even taking into account the effects of the projectionists themselves.
- Uninstalling and removing a part from a closed machine that’s internally needed for taking apart the machine in itself.
- If you can’t read this text, your computer is not good enough to translate it.
- “This statement is false.” as a logical assertion describing it’s own truth value

- (A) and (B) are sets,
- (a1, a2, …) ∈ (A), (b1, b2, …) ∈ (B),
- (A) = (B) & (B) = (A),

We will now define a syntactic function to be used under the conditions that adding an element (c) to the set (B) leads to contradiction. That is to say, when performing the operation

- (A) U ((c) ∈ (B))

- ((A) = (B)) & ((B) != (A)),as(c) dulls (B) from (A) due to (b) unless…X(c) | Y(c) | Z(c) | …

- X(c) = (((b_1 = (c^-1)), (c)) ∈ (B)) = (A) |
- Y(c) = (((b_2 = (-c)), (c)) ∈ (B)) = (A) |
- Z(c) = (((b_3) = (complement(c)), (c)) ∈ (B)) = (A),

- (((A) = (B)) & ((B) = (A))) & (((A) ∪ (B)) = ((B) ∪ (A))) ∪ (((A) ∪ (B)) == (0)) = 0,

can only be done extensively and exhaustively…

if one hopes to succeed at both sharing and friendship,

and that’s why time is a mutually disagreed upon figment,

so I guess I could say time dulls us together,

and if it doesn’t, something is both wrong and right,

because if you are that inclusivist and harmonious, you should find yourself blaming the wrongness on anything at all, and doing anything at all to fix it,

and after all, why doth the mind and body die without sustenance, and why is that sustenance both friendship and food both for the being’s mind and body?

Thanks to John R. Durbin for being a great teacher and an excellent textbook author.

- (ABBA| 0)?