Are these statements logically correct?

Question

A variant has more than one characteristic. The characteristics of variants are invariants. The invariants of a variant cannot be found without comparing it to other variants.

In any experiment, a variant is varied. Then, the variant is compared to the variants it forms to find its characteristics. The variants formed from a variant differ with experiments (conditions). The different characteristics of a variant are found by different experiments. All the characteristics of a variant cannot be found by a single experiment.

Answer 1

I disagree.

If you can not define the characteristics of a variant then by definition you can not compare it to the characteristics of another variant. Additionally, you can not define the characteristics of a variant by exclusion unless you already know all the possible different characteristics of a variant.

Multiple experiements are needed only if the statistical power of the experiment is low. Given a high enough power, or ideally all possible characteristics of a variant can be displayed in a single set, then only one experiment is needed.

Answer 2

they only make partially sense.
You don't state that a variant can consist of other variants, and so the sentence : the variant it forms is recursive and does not make any sense to me.
For me the first three sentences and the last two make sense. But they are definitely very deficient in style.

Answer 3

That reminds me of a joke. These two guys are arguing about the effects of alcohol. So they decide to put their theories to a test. The first night they drank whiskey,and water.They both got drunk. The second night they drank Scotch,and water. Again they both got drunk. The third night they drank Gin,and water. Once again they got drunk. So after reviewing their findings.They came to the conclusion that since the only constant was indeed the water. The water was responsible for getting them drunk.

Answer 4

there is no such element as a logically maximum appropriate assertion, purely a logically maximum appropriate argument (it is, an inference created from statements). in spite of the shown fact that, i think of your first assertion is fake (or badly formulated): for it is no longer a branch between people who *have faith* the international could be divided into 2 communities of human beings and people who do no longer, yet between people who *understand* the international could be so divided and people who do no longer. on your assertion itself proves that it is attainable. additionally, any lifelike man or woman will see that the international could be so divided whilst they hear your first assertion. Your 2nd assertion is self-contradictory and subsequently meaningless. EDIT: related to your first assertion: in case you state this to a man or woman who does not yet understand the international could be so divided, and in case you employ the be conscious "understand", they'll in all possibility locate you boastful: for they don't have faith that it is authentic. it is somewhat shown to be authentic, in spite of the shown fact that: with the aid of dividing the international into people who're you (it is a collection with one member) and human beings who're no longer you (a collection of roughly 7 billion participants). The question no be counted if it is *clever* to divide the international in this variety has no longer even been raised yet, of direction.

Answer 5

This makes perfect sense to me.
The answer is,Yes

Answer 6

yes

Answer 7

Too much time on your hands.