Our question is not was Plato overlooking something he should have thought of, is does this argument work or not.

我们的问题不是柏拉图忽略了,一些他本该想到的事情，而是这个论证说不说得通。

耶鲁公开课 - 死亡课程节选

If they're going to survive thinking about this case at all, we need to throw in a no branching rule.

如果要让这个案例说得通，我们必须加入无分支规则。

耶鲁公开课 - 死亡课程节选

But now it's going to make more sense because in that case we were just talking about single electron atoms, and now we're talking about a case where we actually can see shielding.

但是现在能讲得通了,因为在那个情况中我们仅仅是现在我们讨论的是,讨论单电子原子，看到屏蔽的案例,我们能看到屏蔽。

麻省理工公开课 - 化学原理课程节选

In this case, it's cutting up from the bottom end, which makes sense because the thing I'm looking for is always bigger than the midpoint and then, I don't know, let's pick something in between. Somebody want-- ah, I keep doing that-- somebody like to give me a number?

排除元素，这是讲得通的，因为我总是找比中点大的元素,那让我们挑一个同,中点之间的元素吧,我再来试试，谁给我个数字吧,我知道你们想给我些其他东西？

麻省理工公开课 - 计算机科学及编程导论课程节选

That makes sense because we know that every single electron has to have its own distinct set of four quantum numbers, the only way that we can do that is to have a maximum of two spins in any single orbital or two electrons per orbital.

那个讲得通,因为我们知道每一个电子,都有它自己独特的量子数,我们能做的唯一方式是,在任一单个轨道中最多有两个自旋电子,或者每个轨道有两个电子。

麻省理工公开课 - 化学原理课程节选

So if we understand the argument in terms of the second interpretation, it looks as invisible. It looks all the argument still go through, Simmias' counterexample fails.

所以如果我们以第二种解释,理解这个论证，灵魂是无形的,所有的论证仍然讲得通，西米亚斯的反例无效了。

耶鲁公开课 - 死亡课程节选

Our question is, do we think it works or not?

问题是,我们认为它说得通吗

耶鲁公开课 - 死亡课程节选

This intuitively should make a lot of sense, because we know we're trying to minimize electron repulsions to keep things in as low an energy state as possible, so it makes sense that we would put one electron in each orbital first before we double up in any orbital.

这个直观上讲得通，因为我们知道尝试去最小化电子排斥力,从而尽可能的保持处于一个较低的能态,所以它讲得通,在我们在同一个轨道放入两个电子之前,我们首先把电子放入每一个轨道。

麻省理工公开课 - 化学原理课程节选

We know that it has to be equal to less than 2, because even if we had absolutely no shielding at 2 all, the highest z effective we could have is 2, so it makes perfect sense that we have a z effective that falls somewhere in the middle of those two.

我们知道它必须小于，因为即使完全没有一点屏蔽,最高的有效的z是，所以我们得到的有效电荷量处于,两者之间就非常讲得通了,让我们来看看另一个例子。

麻省理工公开课 - 化学原理课程节选

Couldn't it still be the case that as long as we take into account the importance of getting the right kinds of pleasures, then really pleasure is what it's all about and all that it's about? No, I think that's still not right.

它还说得通吗？,当我们考虑,正确的快乐的重要性时，那才是真正的快乐,而且仅为快乐？，不，我认为那还是不对。

耶鲁公开课 - 死亡课程节选