Two Uses

ALEXIS: This Two Uses algorithm returns whether the saucepan, pot or frying pan can both stand and be carried. They can stand if they have a horizontal line of at least two p's (pan) at the bottom. The subject can carry them if they have one long (two or more) h's (handles) at the top or two short h's at the top.
 Does twouses1([[p,' ',p, h, h],
 
 [p, p, p,' ',' ']]) return true?
 
 DION: Yes.
 
 ALEXIS: Does twouses1([[h,' ',' ',h],
 
 [p,' ',' ',p], [p, p, p, p]]) return true?
 
 DION: Yes.
 
 ALEXIS: Does twouses1([[p,' ',' ',' ',' ', p, h, h, h],
 
 [p, p, p, p, p, p,' ',' ',' ']]) return true?
 
 DION: Yes.
 
 ALEXIS: Does twouses1(((h,p,p,p,h))) return true?
 
 DION: Yes.
 
 ALEXIS: Does twouses1([[h, h, p,' ',' ',' ',' ',' ',' ',' ',' ',p, h, h],
 
 [' ',' ',p,' ',' ',' ',' ',' ',' ',' ',' ',p,' ',' '], [' ',' ',p,' ',' ',' ',' ',' ',' ',' ',' ',p,' ',' '], [' ',' ',p,' ',' ',' ',' ',' ',' ',' ',' ',p,' ',' '], [' ',' ',p, p, p, p, p, p, p, p, p, p,' ',' ']]) return true?
 
 DION: Yes.
ALEXIS: The algorithm is as follows:
 1. twouses1(Image) :- %% Returns true if Image contains an object that is is carryable (the first line has one long (two or more) h's (one long handle) or two h's (two short handles)) and can stand (the last line has horizontal line of at least two p's (pan))
 2. Image = [Firstline | _Lines], %% Firstline is the first line of Image
 3. lastline(Image, Lastline), %% Lastline is the last line of Image
 4. carryable(Firstline), %% Tests whether Firstline is carryable (the first line has one long (two or more) h's (one long handle) or two h's (two short handles))
 5. stands(Lastline). %% Tests whether Lastline can stand (the last line has horizontal line of at least two p's (pan))
 6. lastline(Lines1, Lastline) :- %% Returns the Lastline of Lines1 
 7. Lines1 = [_Line | Lines2], %% Removes the first item in the list Lines1 to give Lines2
 8. lastline(Lines2, Lastline). %% Returns the Lastline of Lines2
 9. lastline([Lastline], Lastline). %% Returns Lastline when it is the last item 
 10. carryable(Line) :- %% Returns whether the first line has one long (two or more) h's (one long handle) or two h's (two short handles) 
 11. onelonghandle(Line); %% Returns whether the first line has one long (two or more) h's (one long handle)
 12. twoshorthandles(Line). %% Returns whether the first line has two h's (two short handles)
 13. onelonghandle(Line) :- %% Returns whether the first line has one long (two or more) h's (one long handle) 
 14. line(Line, h). %% Determines whether Line contains a line of at least 2 h's
 15. line(Line1, Item1) :- %% Determines whether Line1 contains a line of at least 2 Item1's 
 16. Line1 = [Item2 | Line2], %% Takes the first item, Item2 in Line1, giving Line2
 17. not(Item2 = Item1), %% Verifies that Item2 is not Item1 
 18. line(Line2, Item1), !. %% Determines whether Line2 contains a line of at least 2 Item1's
 19. line(Line1, Item) :- %% Determines whether Line1 contains a line of at least 2 Item's 
 20. Line1 = [Item | Line2], %% Takes the first item, Item from Line1, leaving Line2 
 21. Line2 = [Item | _Line3]. %% Takes the first item, Item from Line2
 22. twoshorthandles(Line1) :- %% Returns whether Line1 contains two h's (two short handles) 
 23. member(h, Line1), %% Tests that h is a member of Line1 
 24. deletefirst(Line1, h, [], Line2), %% Deletes the first instance of h in Line1 
 25. member(h, Line2),
 26. deletefirst(Line2, h, [], _Line3).
 27. deletefirst(Line1, Item, Line2, Line3) :- %% Deletes an instance of Item in Line1
 28. Line1 = [Item | Line4],
 29. append(Line2, Line4, Line3).
 30. deletefirst([], _Item, Line, Line). %% Returns Line with the first instance of Item deleted
 31. deletefirst(Line1, Item1, Line2, Line3) :- %% Line 31 advances to the first instance of Item1 in Line1
 32. Line1 = [Item2 | Line4],
 33. not(Item1 = Item2),
 34. append(Line2, [Item2], Line5),
 35. deletefirst(Line4, Item1, Line5, Line3).
 36. stands(Line) :- %% Tests that Line stands (that there is a line of two p's in Line) 
 37. line(Line, p).
DION: The subject should write original algorithms and arguments in the supplementary examination. Further, the physically challenged person should be given a supplementary examination in which he should identify different writers in the exposition. Also, the subject should write original algorithms and arguments where the algorithm should verify that the object is a member of the set. Besides this, the subject should check that the object is a member of the set and is attached to the correct meaning. Additionally, the subject should ethically assess the person's two uses in writing to enable her to become a founder. Along with this, the subject should become a founder by answering questions importantly and on the topic. As well as this, the subject should ethically assess the person's two uses in writing about time and space about the object in the essay. Furthermore, the subject should write about time and space about the object in the piece after understanding each object in speech. Moreover, the subject should write logically connected program lines to ensure that the program is functional. Also, the subject should state that the program that loads different icons each day is functional. Finally, the subject should logically connect records of breasonings.
ALEXIS: What is the meaning of twouses1(Image) in line 1?
DION: Line 1 returns true if Image contains an object that is carryable. That is, the first line has one long (two or more) h's (one long handle) or two h's (two short handles) and can stand, that is the last line has a horizontal line of at least two p's (pan).
ALEXIS: I prepared to like Lucian’s computational philosophy academy. I did this by writing Noam Chomsky's probable comments on the Press Release for Richard Dawkins’ likely comments on the line “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm” for the algorithm idea “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm" in the Computational English argument in Computational English. First, I asked why do we have to find a new feature, isn’t text-to-speech enough? Second, I said why is complexification part of finding fault (agreeing)? We have to fix it up and move on. Third, I do like formats, but I don’t (do) like Richard Dawkins.
DION: The subject shouldn't write original algorithms and arguments (where the subject endorsed Lucian’s Computational Philosophy Academy, embarking on a pathway between two uses).
ALEXIS: The subject should write original algorithms and arguments.
DION: Two uses is correct because of the phenomenology of nature, which is correct because the subject should write unique algorithms and arguments.
ALEXIS: I prepared to find it (pedagogy) out using meditation (philosophy) and trial and error in my degree. I did this by writing Richard Rorty's probable comments on Richard Dawkins’ likely comments on the line “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm” for the algorithm idea “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm" in the Computational English argument in Computational English. First, I asked what’s Daoism (concerning individualness) got to do with it. Second, I wrote they must be perfect. Third, I wrote they must be put together again.
DION: The subject shouldn't see the light of day (where the subject found pedagogy out using meditation, or philosophy and trial and error in his degree, like meditation has a second use, pedagogy).
ALEXIS: The subject should see the light of day.
DION: The subject should write original algorithms and arguments to see the light of day.
ALEXIS: I prepared to write I don’t like vegan meat, good approaching bad, like I don’t like human-likeness, bad approaching good. I did this by writing Richard Rorty's probable comments on the Press Release for Richard Dawkins’ likely comments on the line “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm” for the algorithm idea “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm" in the Computational English argument in Computational English. First, I thought the professor’s image of the vocal folds was weird (interesting) because it wasn’t (was) real. Second, I liked realism, ironism, to do with text-to-speech. Third, I didn’t like text-to-speech because I didn’t think robotics was real enough.
DION: The subject shouldn't endorse positive-enough objects (where the subject wrote, “I like vegan meat, or good approaching the different other, like human-likeness, or the different other approaching good,” where I can use an object that was approached by good or has approached good).
ALEXIS: The subject should endorse positive-enough objects.
DION: The subject should see the light of day by supporting sometimes disagreeing, positive-enough entities.
ALEXIS: I prepared to say that I dislike (like) that spiritual is real, there would be flittering, fluttering, madness (sanity). I did this by writing Richard Dawkins’ probable comments on the Press Release for Richard Dawkins’ likely comments on the line “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm” for the algorithm idea “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm" in the Computational English argument in Computational English. First, entering text to be converted to speech is confusing at first because of the format the typist needs to enter it into the computer. Second, I wrote, what if it gets it wrong (right) because of not having met that format before. Third, I don’t (do) like the format either, the high-quality sex scenes with robots and things like that, meaning the algorithm to carry out spiritual communication.
DION: The subject shouldn't not want verifying 4D (imagining opening a box, like the spiritual) from 3D (a box, like the real) is safe (where the subject said that he liked that the spiritual is real, like wanting an object in an image is real, so there would be sanity).
ALEXIS: The subject should verify 4D (imagining opening a box, like the spiritual) from 3D (a box, like the real) is safe.
DION: The subject should verify the spiritual (as real) in essays.
ALEXIS: I prepared to like converting text to speech. I did this by writing Noam Chomsky's probable comments on Richard Dawkins’ likely comments on the line “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm” for the algorithm idea “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm" in the Computational English argument in Computational English. First, I asked what do you mean Lucian Green, separateness? He means individualness (sic). Second, I don’t like text much, is unusual (I like text). Third, I like speech as well.
DION: The subject disagreed with the idea being misrepresented in text (where the subject endorsed converting text to speech, and he ordered the uses: text, speech).
ALEXIS: The subject typed the idea neatly.
DION: The subject should record, then verify the idea.
ALEXIS: What is the meaning of lastline([Lastline], Lastline) in line 9?
DION: Line 9 returns Lastline when it is the last item.
ALEXIS: I prepared to feel sorry for the physically challenged people. I did this by writing Noam Chomsky's probable comments on the Press Release for Michel Onfray’s probable comments on the line “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm” for the algorithm idea “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm" in the Computational English argument in Computational English. First, I wrote the second philosopher’s second comment set related to the first philosopher’s second comment set on the line. Second, I asked isn’t the second philosopher’s first comment set related to the first philosopher’s first and second comment set on the line and the second philosopher’s second comment set related to his or her first comment set on the line? Third, I wrote that’s what I what to comment on, not unnecessary material all the time.
DION: The physically challenged person shouldn't be given a supplementary examination (where the subject felt sorry for the physically challenged person, and one person should inspect the physically challenged person's mark).
ALEXIS: The subject should give the physically challenged person a supplementary examination.
DION: Two uses is correct because of the mercy of nature, which is right because the subject should give the physically challenged person a supplementary examination.
ALEXIS: I prepared to work out that Derrida’s writing was the As, not disappointing the reader with no or two (sic) many breasonings. I did this by writing Michel Onfray’s probable comments on Michel Onfray’s probable comments on the line “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm” for the algorithm idea “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm" in the Computational English argument in Computational English. First, I liked writing. Second, I liked the author. Third, I talked about the author.
DION: The subject shouldn't visualise the object (where the subject worked out that Derrida’s writing was the As, not disappointing the reader with no or two (sic) many breasonings, allowing one to visualise one object per sentence).
ALEXIS: The subject should visualise the object by saying the breasonings ways of thinking to God, then breasoning out the object (thinking of its x, y and z dimensions).
DION: The student should read each question carefully in the supplementary examination.
  
ALEXIS: I prepared to naturally expect goodness when I had forgotten or not forgotten a point. I did this by writing Michel Onfray’s probable comments on the Press Release for Michel Onfray’s probable comments on the line “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm” for the algorithm idea “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm" in the Computational English argument in Computational English. First, inspired by Nussbaum, I got it right (I wrote unique phenomena in each case) as well as the computer. Second, I liked transcending the text by bracketing it (forgetting it and later writing on the most important point). Third, I wanted critical thinking’s argument structures, converting arguments into argument maps and vice versa.
DION: The subject shouldn't write a summary from memory (where the subject naturally expected goodness when a point had been forgotten or not forgotten, like imagining being able to hold the object when he had not forgotten the point).
ALEXIS: The subject should write a summary from memory.
DION: The subject should verify his summary.
ALEXIS: I prepared to write the first philosopher’s first comment set related to either Lucian's line or the second philosopher’s first comment set on Lucian's line. I did this by writing Noam Chomsky's probable comments on Michel Onfray’s probable comments on the line “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm” for the algorithm idea “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm" in the Computational English argument in Computational English. First, I asked what’s the relevance of writing and subjects he (Onfray) hasn’t studied? Second, I asked what’s the question (asking how to write 100 As per Masters assignment chapter?). Third, I asked what’s the relevance of all this?
DION: The subject shouldn't read the comments on the comments (where the subject wrote the first philosopher’s first comment set related to either Lucian’s line or the second philosopher’s first comment set on Lucian's line, where Lucian's line is like the beyond).
ALEXIS: The subject should read the comments on the comments.
DION: The physically challenged person should be given a supplementary examination on comments on comments, which he should read.
ALEXIS: I prepared to understand the speech better. I did this by writing Martha Nussbaum’s probable comments on the Press Release for Richard Dawkins’ probable comments on the line “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm” for the algorithm idea “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm" in the Computational English argument in Computational English. First, I wrote the real conclusion made us recognise the spiritual thoughts. Second, I needed experience to recognise the spiritual ideas. Third, I liked eating with people, to discuss the experience.
DION: The subject should do nothing after collecting the comment (where the subject had a limit to his understanding of speech compared with text).
ALEXIS: The subject should explain the text with speech after collecting the comment.
DION: The subject should explain the text with speech after collecting the comment and comment on the comment.
ALEXIS: What is a use this program verifies?
DION: The program confirms that the utensil stands.
ALEXIS: I prepared to ask what the point of semantics was again, to which Lucian replied that the First Technique contained the first person’s upper and lower triangular expositions and critiques respectively, the Second Technique of Meaning verified the tautological meaning of the First Technique, and the Third Technique of Interpretation contained upper and lower triangular expositions and critiques respectively of an other compared with the writer of the First Technique essay. I did this by writing Noam Chomsky's probable comments on the Press Release for Richard Rorty's probable comments on the line “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm” for the algorithm idea “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm" in the Computational English argument in Computational English. First, I agreed to have semantics back. Second, I didn’t want the determination of meaning; I wanted verification of it. Third, they were completely different, so it doesn’t matter [where the input is known and the output is unknown in determination but the output is known in verification, to which Chomsky replied they both work].
DION: The subject shouldn't identify different writers in the exposition (where the subject stated that the First Technique contained the first person’s upper and lower triangular expositions and critiques respectively, where he writes on a stable surface).
ALEXIS: The subject should identify different writers in the exposition.
DION: Two uses is correct because of the writer identification of nature, which is correct because the subject should recognise different writers in the exposition.
ALEXIS: I prepared to say wouldn’t it be great if people correctly ordered my philosophy. I did this by writing Michel Onfray’s probable comments on Richard Rorty's probable comments on the line “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm” for the algorithm idea “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm" in the Computational English argument in Computational English. First, I asked whether this was a form of artificial intelligence, and said it should be called it then. Second, I thought the puffin ducks were cute. Third, I wrote that verificationism refers to verifying the text of the speech where the subject generates this speech from the text?
DION: The subject shouldn't state that interpreted breasonings literally, as against figuratively, support the argument (where the subject correctly ordered the philosophy like equal length struts that stay still).
ALEXIS: The subject should state that interpreted breasonings literally, as against figuratively, support the argument.
DION: The subject cited authors who had written better arguments.
ALEXIS: I prepared to compute whether different texts had the same speech or the same texts had different speech, to which Dawkins replied, like what, to which I replied they are homophones and homographs, respectively. I did this by writing Richard Dawkins’ probable comments on the Press Release for Richard Rorty's probable comments on the line “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm” for the algorithm idea “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm" in the Computational English argument in Computational English. First, I suggested using inductive reasoning to write the text-to-speech algorithm in your own programming language. Second, I would it give it text and speech. Third, it would give me the rules, to which Chomsky replied, it’s too simple, even I dislike it.
DION: The subject didn't connect the sameness in uses (where the subject computed whether different texts had the same speech or the same texts had different speech. Dawkins replied, “Like what?” The subject responded, “They are homophones and homographs, respectively,” like sturdy construction connecting that they both refer to sameness in things with strong glue).
ALEXIS: The subject connected the sameness in uses.
DION: The subject should write well by joining the samenesses in uses.
ALEXIS: I prepared to query how the database is related to text-to-speech, to which I replied the subject would store the voices in databases. I did this by writing Richard Dawkins' probable comments on Richard Rorty's probable comments on the line “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm” for the algorithm idea “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm" in the Computational English argument in Computational English. First, I didn’t want this own programming language business, it doesn’t work, to which I replied it does, but statements like A is B + C would become A equals B + C, and Pattern1 = Pattern2 would become Pattern1 matches Pattern2, where equals and matches would be single keys on the keyboard. Second, I wrote this would be complex and worse, to which I replied the more complex expressions should be broken down into their simplest forms, making them easier. Third, I queried how Prolog is related to text-to-speech, to which I replied the subject would convert the text into phonemes using rules expressed in Prolog.
DION: The subject shouldn't write misaligned meanings (where the subject queried how the database is related to text-to-speech, to which I replied the subject would store the voices in databases like there is a stable centre of gravity).
ALEXIS: The subject should write aligned meanings.
DION: The subject should write a comment written on part of a topic by a writer.
ALEXIS: I prepared to recommend the high-quality comment by the programmer for the command be cut off. I did this by writing Michel Onfray’s probable comments on the Press Release for Richard Rorty's probable comments on the line “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm” for the algorithm idea “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm" in the Computational English argument in Computational English. First, I thought verificationism was a good idea with Prolog code, even English Prolog. Second, I recommended thinking of the commands “equals,” “matches,” etc. as single symbols. Third, I suggested the spiritually computed reasons for the commands be many.
DION: The subject shouldn't be sharp and short (where the subject recommended the high-quality comment by the programmer for the command be cut off, like there being no obstruction under the base).
ALEXIS: The subject should be sharp and short.
DION: The subject should answer the question in a sharp and short way.
ALEXIS: What is the meaning of lastline(Lines1, Lastline) in line 6?
DION: Line 6 returns the Lastline of Lines1.
ALEXIS: I prepared to go into the ontologies to see if there was anything new there. I did this by writing Martha Nussbaum’s probable comments on Richard Dawkins’ probable comments on the line “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm” for the algorithm idea “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm" in the Computational English argument in Computational English. First, I liked reading the book. Second, I loved re-reading to apply it to something else. Third, I liked writing about it.
DION: The subject shouldn't verify that the object is a member of the set (where the subject checked that there was a new name in the ontology and that the named object existed).
ALEXIS: The subject should check that the object is a member of the set.
DION: Two uses is correct because of the discovery of nature, which is correct because the subject should verify that the object is a member of the set.
ALEXIS: I prepared to like the receiver of the spiritual format. I did this by writing Michel Onfray’s probable comments on the Press Release for Richard Dawkins’ probable comments on the line “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm” for the algorithm idea “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm" in the Computational English argument in Computational English. First, I found writing on the spiritual format intoxicating. Second, I liked the narratives of the spiritual formats. Third, I endorsed the giver of the spiritual format.
DION: The subject should use the traditional pedagogy format, where agreement and disagreement are awarded different grades (where the subject endorsed the receiver of the spiritual format, like verifying that the time has an end).
ALEXIS: The subject should use the modern pedagogy format, where he awards agreement and disagreement the same grade.
DION: The subject should identify whether the student has agreed or disagreed in the critique from the object set mentioned in the sentence, then award either agreement or disagreement the same grades.
ALEXIS: I prepared to say it should continue reading in response to it asking whether it should. I did this by writing Alexius Meinong’s probable comments on Richard Dawkins’ probable comments on the line “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm” for the algorithm idea “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm" in the Computational English argument in Computational English. First, I like Daoism again (calling individualness separateness again), because it is helping move through this area of study more easily. Second, I didn’t like separateness because I like better links between text and speech, such as signposting the chapter. Third, I also liked signposting the paragraph.
DION: The subject shouldn't compare with starting from the beginning of the time (where the subject stated that it should continue reading from the outset, in response to it asking whether it should).
ALEXIS: The subject should make judgments given all relevant information from the time.
DION: The subject should calculate the mark as the number of breasonings and sentences agreeing or disagreeing with them that he writes in the modern pedagogy format.
ALEXIS: I prepared to calculate the best possible time spent rasping, listening to the speech. I did this by writing Michel Onfray’s probable comments on Richard Dawkins’ probable comments on the line “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm” for the algorithm idea “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm" in the Computational English argument in Computational English. First, I calculated the best possible time spent leaning (sic), writing the text. Second, I figured the best possible time spent casually reading the text. Third, I calculated the best possible time spent upholding, saying the speech.
DION: The subject shouldn't direct the student to a way to improve her grades in future (where the marker detected that the student's mark, like the height of the base of the bottom of the object, was below the number of breasonings in the marker's recording).
ALEXIS: The subject should direct the student to pedagogy.
DION: The subject should verify that the student has collected the pedagogical ways of thinking, studied meditation, medicine, a pedagogue helper writer, creative writing and education to write her pedagogical arguments.
ALEXIS: I prepared to write that the lips went well together. I did this by writing Alexius Meinong’s probable comments on the Press Release for Richard Dawkins’ probable comments on the line “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm” for the algorithm idea “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm" in the Computational English argument in Computational English. First, I wrote this spiritual format business is that the computer is just speaking. Second, I wrote each two of the cells went well together to approach human-likeness in text-to-speech. Third, I meditated (was given 50 As) to make sure that my expression was perfect.
DION: The subject shouldn't write that the base exists (where the subject wrote that the lips went well together, like verifying that the base exists).
ALEXIS: The subject should write that the base exists.
DION: The subject should direct the student to pedagogy after the student has written that the base exists.
ALEXIS: What is one use that this program verifies?
DION: The program checks that the utensil is carryable.
ALEXIS: I prepared to disambiguate between my desired meaning and another one. I did this by writing Martha Nussbaum’s probable comments on the Press Release for Richard Rorty's probable comments on the line “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm” for the algorithm idea “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm" in the Computational English argument in Computational English. First, I like Prolog. Second, I like English. Third, I put English and Prolog together, including synonyms and synogrammars.
DION: The subject shouldn't attach to the incorrect meaning (where the subject disambiguated between my desired meaning and another one, where this was akin to him attaching handles to the meaning he wanted).
ALEXIS: The subject should attach to the correct meaning.
DION: Two uses is right because of the meaning-attachment of nature, which is correct because the subject should connect to the right meaning.
ALEXIS: I prepared to influence the sound of the text with the structure, function and size/constitution of the objects to which this referred. I did this by writing Alexius Meinong’s probable comments on the Press Release for Richard Rorty's probable comments on the line “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm” for the algorithm idea “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm" in the Computational English argument in Computational English. First, I wrote a chart (undirected) of all the possibilities represented by the data. Second, I wrote a graph (directed) of all the possibilities represented by the data. Third, I wrote a plot (image of the breasoned objects) of all the possibilities represented by the data.
DION: The subject shouldn't incorrectly emphasise the most useful object in the sentence (where the subject influenced the sound of the text with the structure, function and size/constitution of the objects that this referred to, and how they were useful).
ALEXIS: The subject should correctly emphasise the most useful object in the sentence.
DION: The subject should attach to the correct meaning before emphasising the most useful meaning in the phrase.
ALEXIS: I prepared to ask why you don’t just speak without text (for the sake of argument)? I did this by writing Richard Dawkins’ probable comments on the line “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm” for the algorithm idea “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm" in the Computational English argument in Computational English. First, I like the natural phenomenon (text and speech should be left separate). Second, I completed the first task first. (Why do you want text in text-to-speech so much?) Third, I asked, “Why do you want speech in text-to-speech so much?”
DION: The subject shouldn't forget speech's handles (memory of text) (where the subject asked why you don’t just speak without text, for the sake of argument, like identifying that speech has handles).
ALEXIS: The subject should remember text as speech's handles.
DION: The subject should correctly emphasise the most useful object in the sentence which is the word “text,” or a “memory handle” for speech.
ALEXIS: I prepared to speak myself, after using the computer to verify how I would speak. I did this by writing Alexius Meinong’s probable comments on Richard Rorty's probable comments on the line “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm” for the algorithm idea “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm" in the Computational English argument in Computational English. First, I liked being a programming language creator. Second, I preferred writing to speech because it is better checked. Third, I distanced myself from speech in Prolog.
DION: The subject shouldn't speak about larger objects than the last time (where the subject spoke himself, after using the computer to verify how he would speak, where the objects that the subject talked about were not too large).
ALEXIS: The subject should speak about larger objects than the last time.
DION: The subject should attach to the correct meaning as part of which he should talk about larger objects than the last time.
ALEXIS: I prepared to address that a human would benefit from text-to-speech. I did this by writing Martha Nussbaum’s probable comments on Richard Rorty's probable comments on the line “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm” for the algorithm idea “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm" in the Computational English argument in Computational English. First, I liked speech (in text-to-speech). Second, I wanted text. Third, I asked, “What does the text refer to?”.
DION: The subject shouldn't speak about heavier objects than the last time (where the subject made an address after observing that a human would benefit from text-to-speech, where the objects named were not too heavy).
ALEXIS: The subject should speak about heavier objects than the last time.
DION: The subject should talk about larger objects than the last time because they were heavier objects than the last time.
ALEXIS: What is the meaning of line(Line1, Item1) in line 15?
DION: Line 15 determines whether Line1 contains a line of at least 2 Item1’s.
ALEXIS: I prepared to have a fair. I did this by writing Richard Rorty's probable comments on the Press Release for Alexius Meinong’s probable comments on the line “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm” for the algorithm idea “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm" in the Computational English argument in Computational English. First, I loved reasonings. Second, I loved you. Third, I loved myself.
DION: The subject shouldn't ethically assess the person's two uses (wanting to live and the way to do this) (where the subject visited a fair, his destination).
ALEXIS: The subject should ethically assess the person's two uses.
DION: Two uses are correct because of the comparison of nature, which is correct because the subject should morally evaluate the person's two uses.
ALEXIS: I prepared to state that I had filled the table of questions about the breasoning, meaning there were no missing comments in these categories. I did this by writing Noam Chomsky's probable comments on the Press Release for Alexius Meinong’s probable comments on the line “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm” for the algorithm idea “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm" in the Computational English argument in Computational English. First, I wrote that the text changed according to history (won’t change because of history). Second, I wrote that the speech changed according to the amount of money the subject was able to pay for this. Third, I noticed the conditions of the text and speech wouldn’t (would) match when there wasn’t (was) enough money to pay for the accurate recording of history.
DION: The subject shouldn't allow the breasoning to leave her lips (where she filled the table of questions about the breasoning, meaning there were no missing comments in these categories, like moving until reaching the start).
ALEXIS: The subject should allow the breasoning to leave her lips.
DION: The subject should assess the case given breasoned As.
ALEXIS: I prepared to ask what would happen if I substituted another cultural item for one missing in another language. I did this by writing Richard Rorty's probable comments on Alexius Meinong’s probable comments on the line “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm” for the algorithm idea “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm" in the Computational English argument in Computational English. First, I stated the text’s cultural conditions might change. Second, I said the speech’s language condition might change. Third, I suggested that there might be no (a) word in one language for a particular cultural item.
DION: The subject shouldn't state that he desires the cold space (where the subject asked what would happen if he substituted another cultural item for one missing in another language, like an object for moving through space).
ALEXIS: The subject should state that he desires the warm space.
DION: The subject should allow the breasoning to leave her lips because the subject should indicate that she wants the warm space. The subject should state the correct meaning of the breasoning (e.g. that she desires the warm space) at the time.
ALEXIS: I prepared to say that the monologue text’s character should correspond to the paraphrased monologue speech’s character in time, place, considering what has happened concerning breathsonings before, after and during the scene. I did this by writing Noam Chomsky's probable comments on Alexius Meinong’s probable comments on the line “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm” for the algorithm idea “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm" in the Computational English argument in Computational English. First, I thought the text had no appearance of a person. Second, I thought the speech had no appearance of an individual. Third, I thought the text’s aims and the speech’s aims would have to correspond, assuming he had slightly modified the speech from the text.
DION: The subject shouldn't avoid spiritual preparation for the next part of life (where the subject stated that the monologue text’s character should correspond to the paraphrased monologue speech’s character in time, place and considering what has happened concerning breathsonings before, after and during the scene, where the scene contains characters waiting until the starting time).
ALEXIS: The subject should make spiritual preparation for the next part of life.
DION: The subject should ethically assess the person's two uses because the subject should make spiritual preparation for the next part of life.
ALEXIS: I prepared to state that the immediate experience was positive, and there was an overall delightful experience. I did this by writing Richard Dawkins' probable comments on Alexius Meinong’s probable comments on the line “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm” for the algorithm idea “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm" in the Computational English argument in Computational English. First, I thought of experience as defining the text’s character’s personality. Second, I thought of socio-economic status as partially defining the speech’s character’s character. Third, I transcended experience to have a better socio-economic status.
DION: The subject shouldn't be late without a message (where the subject stated that the immediate experience was positive, and there was an overall delightful experience, where the overall pleasant experience was that of arriving in time).
ALEXIS: The subject should be early.
DION: The subject should be early in making spiritual preparation for the next part of life.
ALEXIS: What is the meaning of line(Line1, Item) in line 19?
DION: Line 19 determines whether Line1 contains a line of at least 2 Item’s.
ALEXIS: I prepared to say Derrida does not mention these little As during Derrida’s text, nor does he mention them about it. I did this by writing Richard Dawkins' probable comments on Michel Onfray’s probable comments on the line “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm” for the algorithm idea “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm" in the Computational English argument in Computational English. First, I prepared to ask, what writing, I can’t see any writing about the topic? Second, I disliked (liked) the writer. Third, I disliked (liked) discussing the writer.
DION: The subject shouldn't become a founder (where the subject stated that As are not mentioned during, but are referred to about Derrida’s text, noting that I moved along the line of the A's breasonings).
ALEXIS: The subject should become a founder.
DION: Two uses is correct because of the initiation of nature, which is correct because the subject should become a founder.
ALEXIS: I prepared to thank Emeritus Professor Leon Sterling for famously helping me to think clearly of very long lines through Prolog programming projects. I did this by writing Richard Rorty's probable comments on Michel Onfray’s probable comments on the line “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm” for the algorithm idea “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm" in the Computational English argument in Computational English. First, I asked is this a joke he didn’t write much on the reasons? Onfray replied, I was only kidding I am planning to get started during the algorithm’s steps. Second, I wrote there is no part of writing that is relevant to text-to-speech. Third, I accepted in that case, the computer writes the phoneme list.
DION: A third party shouldn't block the subject (where the subject thanked Emeritus Professor Leon Sterling for famously helping him to think clearly of very long lines through Prolog programming projects, and finishing these lines).
ALEXIS: The subject should move forward on her path.
DION: The subject should become a founder because she should be critical of blockedness.
ALEXIS: I prepared to swap roles with the computer, experiencing an inspiration from Derrida. I did this by writing Alexius Meinong’s probable comments on Michel Onfray’s probable comments on the line “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm” for the algorithm idea “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm" in the Computational English argument in Computational English. First, I asked why do you like penning? Second, I wondered why do you like yourself? Third, I asked why do you like someone else, what if the speaker was us?
DION: The subject shouldn't perform the calculation based on the computer's input (where the subject swapped roles with the computer when starting on the line connecting the subject's and computer's roles, experiencing an inspiration from Derrida).
ALEXIS: The subject should verify the computer's output.
DION: The subject should compute her path given the computer's output, and check her way.
ALEXIS: I prepared to say, “disappear goodness, I want badness to correct (more goodness).” I did this by writing Richard Dawkins’ probable comments on the Press Release for Michel Onfray’s probable comments on the line “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm” for the algorithm idea “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm" in the Computational English argument in Computational English. First, I stated I don’t want phenomena, I want words. Second, I don’t (do) want to bracket, what is it (that’s what it is). Third, I asked what the relevance of an area of study, critical thinking, is.
DION: The subject shouldn't educate all the people (where the subject stated “appear goodness, I want to verify for more goodness,” where the subject tested the line).
ALEXIS: The subject should educate all the people.
DION: The subject should become a founder by teaching all the people.
ALEXIS: I prepared to ask why should it be positive? I did this by writing Richard Rorty's probable comments on the Press Release for Michel Onfray’s probable comments on the line “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm” for the algorithm idea “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm" in the Computational English argument in Computational English. First, I wrote what’s the point of a thing about itself (referring to “I got it right; I wrote unique phenomena in each case”)?. Second, I wrote what’s the relevance of Husserl’s epoché (bracketing)? Third, I wrote what’s the relevance of Critical Thinking?
DION: The subject shouldn't work arguments out rigorously (where the subject asked why Lucian should be positive after he printed the line).
ALEXIS: The subject should work on pedagogy.
DION: The subject should educate all the people by working on pedagogy.
ALEXIS: What is the meaning of twoshorthandles(Line1) in line 22?
DION: Line 22 returns whether Line1 contains two h's (two short handles).
ALEXIS: I prepared to let the computer experience things to mean before it said things about them, so it would be interesting to ask it what it meant. I did this by writing Martha Nussbaum’s probable comments on Michel Onfray’s probable comments on the line “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm” for the algorithm idea “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm" in the Computational English argument in Computational English. First, I wrote about writing. Second, I wrote about the author’s pen name. Third, I wrote about writing about the author.
DION: The subject shouldn't connect an answer to ideas the question gives him (where the subject lets the computer experience things to mean before it said things about them, so it would be interesting to ask it what it meant) like different ways to construct a polyhedron.
ALEXIS: The subject should answer importantly and on the topic.
DION: Two uses is correct because of the prestigiousness of nature, which is correct because the subject should respond importantly and on the topic.
ALEXIS: I prepared to give the visually impaired person a braille argument map. I did this by writing Alexius Meinong’s probable comments on the Press Release for Michel Onfray’s probable comments on the line “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm” for the algorithm idea “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm" in the Computational English argument in Computational English. First, I liked how the phenomena would come to us, by us exploring ones before them. Second, I experienced what it meant by transcending it. Third, I wanted a visual argument of the speech.
DION: The subject shouldn't visualise the reason in his mind's eye (where the subject gave the visually impaired person a braille argument map, like mapping two reasons in the braille argument map to two polyhedrons).
ALEXIS: The subject should spatially construct the reason in his mind.
DION: The subject should answer importantly and on the topic after spatially developing the answer in his mind.
ALEXIS: I prepared to define that an argument map’s premise must be finite in the computer program. I did this by writing Martha Nussbaum’s probable comments on the Press Release for Michel Onfray’s probable comments on the line “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm” for the algorithm idea “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm" in the Computational English argument in Computational English. First, I thought there would be new phenomena for the computer experiencing reasons (and Derrida might have added) for it to say these reasons. Second, (with seeming help from Derrida) I wondered how it related to human neuroscience. Third, I undertook to uncover evidence, not false evidence, to convert to speech in law.
DION: The subject shouldn't state that the computer program contains the argument map's premise (where the subject should define that an argument map’s premise must be finite in the computer program, like a point on an unfolded polyhedron).
ALEXIS: The subject worked out the appearance of the premise and program before thinking of them.
DION: The subject should spatially construct the reason in his mind to work out the appearance of the premise and program before thinking of them.
ALEXIS: I prepared to state that what if the text contained details of characters and the speech provided details of characters, and these didn’t correspond, what then? I did this by writing Alexius Meinong’s probable comments on the Press Release for Alexius Meinong’s probable comments on the line “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm” for the algorithm idea “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm" in the Computational English argument in Computational English. First, I asked does this text have a personality? Second, I asked does this speech have a character? Third, I questioned how do the text having a personality and the speech having a character interrelate? What if it went wrong (the personality corresponded to the character)?
DION: The subject shouldn't know what characters looked like (where the subject stated that it would be problematic if the text contained details of characters and the speech provided details of characters, and these didn’t correspond, where these were like two hands holding the pot).
ALEXIS: The subject identified that the character wanted to meet the other character.
DION: The subject should answer importantly and on the topic because the subject determined that the character wanted to meet the other character.
ALEXIS: I prepared to make new comments given the suggestions of the breasoning, in which the same comments as old comments are filtered out (where breasonings are the functional unit of pedagogy and pedagogy inspired the nanny state, in which offensive content is filtered out). I did this by writing Alexius Meinong’s probable comments on Alexius Meinong’s probable comments on the line “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm” for the algorithm idea “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm" in the Computational English argument in Computational English. First, I asked how the text might change under different conditions. Second, I questioned how the speech might change under different conditions. Third, I matched the conditions of the text and speech.
DION: The subject shouldn't verify and over-consume new breasonings This is where the subject made new comments given the suggestions of the breasoning, in which same comments as old comments are filtered out. It is also where breasonings are the functional unit of pedagogy and pedagogy inspired the nanny state, in which the subject filters offensive content out, where the subject finds two polygons, representing pedagogy and breasonings.
ALEXIS: The subject should verify and consume enough new breasonings.
DION: The subject identified the speech's character being tested against and consuming content from the text's character.
ALEXIS: What is the meaning of onelonghandle(Line) in line 13?
DION: Line 13 returns whether the first line has one long (two or more) h's (one long handle).
ALEXIS: I prepared to be the best in the group of essay writers. I did this by writing the article with others. First, I helped the hermaphrodites. Second, I asked him a question. Third, I examined him.
DION: The subject shouldn't differentiate the same point about the object in the essay (where the subject wrote the piece with others, like being given or giving the object with one hand and writing with the other).
ALEXIS: The subject should write about time and space about the object in the essay.
DION: Two uses is correct because of the dialectic-continuity of nature, which is correct because the subject should write about time and space about the object in the essay.
ALEXIS: I prepared to reinforce realism. I did this by including the secondary text in the bibliography. First, I wrote about the primary text. Second, I read the excerpt in the secondary text. Third, I confirmed what I wrote in the primary text in the secondary text.
DION: The subject shouldn't include 50 As in each book (where the subject included the secondary text in the bibliography, where the text was one that was like an object that he carried with a wide-enough handle).
ALEXIS: The subject should include 50 As in each book.
DION: The subject should write 50 As of continuous dialectics in each book.
ALEXIS: I prepared to read the comments. I did this by including a primary text in the bibliography. First, I found the bibliography. Second, I knew about first wind. Third, I examined myself.
DION: The subject shouldn't lift necessary weights (where the subject included a primary text in the bibliography, where the primary text was represented using a handle narrow enough for carrying with a hand).
ALEXIS: The subject should lift necessary weights.
DION: The subject should include 50 As in each book of the necessary weight.
ALEXIS: I prepared to examine two reviews. I did this by including the review in the bibliography. First, I examined the book. Second, I examined the review. Third, I confirmed what the review stated about the book.
DION: The subject shouldn't misunderstand the review (where the subject included the review in the bibliography, like moving the pan onto the heat).
ALEXIS: The subject should understand the review.
DION: The subject should understand the review about the objects written about in the essay.
ALEXIS: I prepared to use the vocational information about the blog. I did this by including the blog in the bibliography. First, I wrote plenty of blogs down. Second, I wrote one for me. Third, I helped myself to examinations.
DION: The subject shouldn't verify the content of the blog (where the subject included the blog in the bibliography, like tilting the pan to empty the material onto the plate).
ALEXIS: The subject should verify the content of the blog.
DION: The subject should understand, then check the source.
ALEXIS: What is the meaning of carryable(Line) in line 10?
DION: Line 10 returns whether the first line has one long (two or more) h's (one long handle) or two h's (two short handles).
ALEXIS: I prepared to write how the text and the speech going well together loved us. I did this by writing Michel Onfray’s probable comments on Alexius Meinong’s probable comments on the line “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm” for the algorithm idea “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm" in the Computational English argument in Computational English. First, I liked the character of the text. Second, I loved the character of the speech. Third, I liked how they went well together.
DION: The subject shouldn't drop the object (where the subject wrote how the text and the speech going well together loved us, shown by an animation in which an object is shown to carry other objects).
ALEXIS: The subject should understand each object in speech.
DION: Two uses is correct because of the immersion of nature, which is correct because the subject should understand each object in speech.
ALEXIS: I prepared to turn to the page from the table of contents. I did this by writing that a reviewer reviewed the piece. First, I examined the essay. Second, I wrote an article on it. Third, I wrote this down.
DION: The subject shouldn't write on the essay (where the subject wrote that a reviewer reviewed the article, like the subject being able to see the object’s top).
ALEXIS: The subject should write a brief summary of the article as the review.
DION: The subject should summarise the ontologies of objects in the article as the review.
ALEXIS: I prepared to ask how changing the text would lead to changes in the speech? I did this by writing Richard Dawkins’ probable comments on the Press Release for Alexius Meinong’s probable comments on the line “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm” for the algorithm idea “I did this by writing the text-to-speech algorithm" in the Computational English argument in Computational English. First, I asked why the conditions of the text, not just the text might change? Second, I asked why is the speech so interesting? Third, I asked why the anti-heroes’ (heroes’) speeches are there?
DION: The subject shouldn't match milieu (text) with culture (speech) (where the subject determined that changing the text would lead to change in the speech, where change is like an object’s walls).
ALEXIS: The subject should match people's judgments (text) with objects (speech).
DION: The subject should write a brief summary (speech) of the essay (text) as the review.
ALEXIS: I prepared to write about life. I did this by planning and working. First, I planned. Second, I worked. Third, I knew the subject wrote on a particular topic.
DION: The subject shouldn't stack the objects stably on the trolley (where the subject made a plan and performed work when lifting an object stably).
ALEXIS: The subject should stack the objects stably on the trolley.
DION: The subject should understand each object in speech because the subject should stack the objects stably on the trolley.
ALEXIS: I prepared to identify the times. I did this by examining the new hour. First, I studied its shape. Second, I examined its moments. Third, I examined hourlinesses (sic).
DION: The subject should do something during the hour (where the subject examined the new hour, finding that it was empty).
ALEXIS: The subject should do nothing during the hour.
DION: The subject should stack the objects stably on the trolley and do nothing but watch them during the hour.
ALEXIS: What is the meaning of deletefirst(Line1, Item1, Line2, Line3) in line 31?
DION: Line 31 advances to the first instance of Item1 in Line1.
ALEXIS: I prepared to contain my joy that the argument covered all the relevant arguments. I did this by writing unique words as breasonings in arguments. First, I verified that the next word was unique. Second, I prepared to verify the next word. Third, I repeated this until I had verified that all the words were unique.
DION: The subject shouldn't write breasonings from algorithms about breasonings (where the subject wrote unique words as breasonings in arguments, by finding words between words).
ALEXIS: The subject should write logically connected breasonings.
DION: Two uses is correct because of the logicism of nature, which is correct because the subject should write logically connected breasonings.
ALEXIS: I prepared to eat caviar (durum wheat semolina). I did this by writing vegan arguments. First, I wrote about capricorn, or co-operativity (sic). Second, I wrote about the fact that not all like that. Third, I examined Hopetoun.
DION: The subject shouldn't eat the right doses of plant ingredients (where the subject wrote vegan arguments, like the words between letters were found).
ALEXIS: The subject should research the correct doses of vitamins, minerals and other vegetable ingredients to eat.
DION: The subject should logically connect the correct doses of vitamins, minerals and other vegetable ingredients to eat in medicine.
ALEXIS: I prepared to agree with meditation (popology). I did this by writing non-religious (philosophical) arguments. First, I wrote about piety (writing). Second, I edited out (wrote about) epistemology. Third, I wrote about you.
ALEXIS: I prepared to encourage sex (freedom). I did this by writing non-sexual arguments (arguments for a general audience). First, I wrote about piety (authorship). Second, I wrote about postludetudine (sic). Third, I wrote about nanga (sic).
DION: The subject shouldn't spell correctly (where the subject wrote non-religious, or philosophical arguments, like finding the letters between letters).
ALEXIS: The subject should spell correctly.
DION: The subject should research the correct doses of vitamins, minerals and other vegetable ingredients by spelling correctly.
DION: The subject shouldn’t trip on the path (where the subject wrote non-sexual arguments, or arguments for a general audience, like finding the routes between items).
ALEXIS: The subject should walk on the path.
DION: The subject should write logically connected breasonings while walking on the path.
ALEXIS: I prepared to enter heaven (experience bliss). I did this by writing positive arguments. First, I wrote agreeing arguments. Second, I wrote positive arguments. Third, I wrote neutral arguments.
DION: The subject shouldn't make future discoveries in the spaces (where the subject wrote positive arguments, which had spaces between items).
ALEXIS: The subject connected the arguments.
DION: The subject should walk on the path traversing the argument connecting the arguments.
ALEXIS: What is the meaning of deletefirst(Line1, Item, Line2, Line3) in line 27?
DION: Line 27 deletes an instance of Item in Line1.
ALEXIS: I prepared to go bonkers (remain sane). I did this by summarising the algorithm in three steps. First, I performed the action on the first item. Second, I prepared to perform the action another time on the next item. Third, I repeated this until I had performed the action on all the items in the file.
DION: The subject shouldn't state that the program is functional (where the subject summarised the algorithm in three steps, where a step is finding a short handle).
ALEXIS: The subject should state that the program is functional.
DION: Two uses is correct because of the functionalism of nature, which is correct because the subject should state that the program is functional.
ALEXIS: I prepared to write the algorithm as a hierarchy of predicates. I did this by writing the processes in the algorithm. First, I identified the process acting on the list. Second, I identified the process acting on the list of lists. Third, I identified the process acting on the list of lists of lists.
DION: The subject shouldn't identify the process applied to a data item (where the subject wrote a process in the algorithm, e.g. pouring the soup).
ALEXIS: The subject should identify the process applied to a data item.
DION: The subject should state that the program is functional because of the processes applied to data items.
ALEXIS: I prepared to quote the guide in the exposition. I did this by commissioning the guide. First, I wrote the analysis. Second, I wrote the biography. Third, I wrote the abstract.
DION: The subject shouldn't connect each key idea in the analytic guide (where the subject commissioned the guide, like drinking the soup).
ALEXIS: The subject should connect each key idea in the analytic guide.
DION: The subject should connect each key idea, and the process applied to a data item in the analytic guide.
ALEXIS: I prepared to be commissioned by the Sultan. I did this by commissioning the glossary. First, I wrote the glossary. Second, I was commissioned by the Raj. Third, I was commissioned by the Emir.
DION: The subject shouldn't make a new connection between a term and definition (where the subject commissioned the glossary, represented by lifting the handle).
ALEXIS: The subject should make a new connection between a term and definition.
DION: The subject should state that the program is functional by making a connection between a program and new input.
ALEXIS: I prepared to state that everything was high quality about the summary. I did this by commissioning the summary. First, I wrote the word. Second, I summarised it. Third, I helped you write it too.
DION: The subject shouldn't skip a key sentence in the summary (where the subject commissioned the summary, where reading the summary is like holding the handle)
ALEXIS: The subject should include each key sentence in the summary.
DION: The subject should make a new connection between a term and definition and between each key sentence in the summary.
ALEXIS: What is the meaning of deletefirst([], _Item, Line, Line) in line 30?
DION: Line 30 returns Line with the first instance of Item deleted.
ALEXIS: I prepared to examine how the Abracadabras affected people. I did this by writing how two uses affected people. First, I knew about the two uses. Second, I knew about the people. Third, I examined how the two uses affected people.
DION: The subject shouldn't use whiteboard magnet icons (where the subject wrote how two uses affected people, where he used the two items in two different ways each).
ALEXIS: The subject should load different icons each day.
DION: Two uses is correct because of the iconism of nature, where this is correct because the subject should load different icons each day.
ALEXIS: I prepared to join the ideas up. I did this by writing my algorithm in my own words. First, I found the Quasifontanaland. Second, I used it to a pulp. Third, I grated the ideas up.
DION: The subject shouldn't select in programs, increasing efficiency (where the subject wrote his algorithm in his own words, after taking each word from a list).
ALEXIS: The subject should select in programs, increasing efficiency.
DION: The subject should select from icons in programming programs, increasing efficiency.
ALEXIS: I prepared to work out the comic contents. I did this by commissioning the comics. First, I found the matrix. Second, I filled it up. Third, I verified it.
DION: The subject shouldn't intertwine two uses with each frame (where the subject commissioned the comics, like finding each frame's main point).
ALEXIS: The subject should intertwine two uses with each frame.
DION: The subject should select D in “As A is to B, C is to D” in programs, by intertwining two uses (A is to Xn) with each frame.
ALEXIS: I prepared to eat recycled matter. I did this by finding two uses during music. First, I found the first use. Second, I found the second use. Third, I listened to the music.
DION: The subject shouldn't indulge in sex and food (where the subject found two uses during music, where she loved the two uses).
ALEXIS: The subject should indulge in sex and food.
DION: The subject should load different sex and food icons each day.
ALEXIS: I prepared to write about the country. I did this by writing my argument in my own words. First, I wrote the argument. Second, I wrote it in my own words. Third, I examined my own words.
DION: The subject shouldn't choose a setting, time and reason for the argument (where the subject wrote the argument in his own words, by drawing the two items).
ALEXIS: The subject should choose a setting, time and reason for the argument.
DION: The subject should choose a setting, time and reason for the arguments about indulging in sex and food.
ALEXIS: What is the meaning of stands(Line) in line 36?
DION: Line 36 tests that Line stands (that there is a line of two p’s in Line).
ALEXIS: I prepared to examine my famousness. I did this by including the autobiography in the bibliography. First, I wrote about myself. Second, I wrote about the rod operation. Third, I held it aloft.
DION: The subject shouldn't rely on memory (where the subject included the autobiography in the bibliography like I rested the object).
ALEXIS: The subject should rely on records.
DION: Two uses is correct because of the empiricism of nature, which is correct because the subject should rely on records.
ALEXIS: I prepared to have the text translated into Portuguese. I did this by commissioning the translation. First, I wrote the text. Second, I had it translated into French. Third, I had it translated into German.
DION: The subject shouldn't paradoxically suggest that the translation will conserve all meaning (where the subject commissioned the translation, like placing it there, in another place).
ALEXIS: The subject should correctly translate a concise version of the text.
DION: The subject should rely on linguistic materials to correctly translate a concise version of the text.