Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Okay sci-fi fans....here is something to think about and of course...I would love to hear your comments on this Time Travelling Paradox.


In the 1st Terminator movie....Kyle Reece is sent back in time by John Conner to save the life of Sarah Conner. In doing so, he falls in love and fathers a child, which we later find out is John Conner himself.

But alas, Kyle Reece dies and therefore cannot fight in the war against the machines as we have learned he did.

Therefore, if time were to continue on from that point in which Kyle Reece dies...John Conner would live up to the leader he was born to be, but never know Kyle Reece in the future, and therefore never be able to send him back in time to save his mother and be his own Father. The Terminator would in fact travel back in time, but without Kyle Reece being sent back to save his Mother, the Terminator would suceed in killing her and therefore there would be no John Conner and he would cease to exist. ( namely due to the reason that Kyle would not be sent back as well, and not be there for Sarah to fall in love with, or Father a child with her )

well Kyle wasn't born until after John grows up, remember? OR he was born while Jon was growing up. He died in the past but wasn't born until sometime in the future. Hence, he'll still be born and grow up to fight the machines...and John knows that. Remember Sarah at the end of Terminator says "would you have changed your decision knowing that he was your father?" (or somethign like that). And Kyle knew John's father dies before the war starts. Maybe John told him this version of Kyle dies before the war starts, but the Kyle that was being born at the very moment (during Terminator or Terminator 2) is going to live. In essence, you have two Kyle's in existence during Terminator 1 or just 1 Kyle in Terminator 2 , depending on how old Kyle is in comparison to John.

My main qualm is why didn't they send the Terminatrix or T-1000 after Sarah or John in Terminator 1 and 2, if they are both more powerful terminators. Just send back the strongest ones.

But wait....on the original timeline...before Judgement day...John Conner is born before his Father ? That don't jive ?

If in fact Kyle Reese is John Connors Father, and Kyle was born after Judgement day...how in fact could he be John's Father ?

Anyone ???

Its the who time paradox thing, but it does make sense if you know the physics behind it and take careful not.

Think of time, past present and future all existing at the same time.

John corner is born because his father comes back in time to meet his mother, it doesnt matter that john is born before his father.

Another way to look at is is to note the big speech about machines and humans and the war. In the first one, Reese(the dad)tells it to the mum, she tells it to john (the son) and in the future it will become a big speech he tells all the humans (a la independance day) which is when Reese will hear it for the first time.

So who wrote the speech???? No one, it just exists as part of all three time lines. The future is set (you cant change it) so it is possible for the dad to come back in time and father a sun because that is how it has, must and can happen

Originally posted by A.D. Skinner
But wait....on the original timeline...before Judgement day...John Conner is born before his Father ? That don't jive ?

If in fact Kyle Reese is John Connors Father, and Kyle was born after Judgement day...how in fact could he be John's Father ?

Anyone ???

because he banged sarah in the first movie

yeh very confusing

Don't you just LOVE time travel?

Originally posted by stunna1773
because he banged sarah in the first movie

Very funny.

It's one of those time loop things.

There's this symbol to express it. The snake eating its own tail. The snake has no beginning or ending, it's an infinite loop.

And though it can be easily overlooked, we do have a Terminator forum.

A lot about the movies confuses me, then, when I think I have it all worked out, I think of something else and am back to where I started.

It's kind of weird in many ways. Skynet is indirectly responsible for creating it's nemesis by creating time travel. Also apparently Skynet created itself from the remains of the first Terminator. This all should have been undone by the end of T2 but for some reason it wasn't.

Originally posted by A.D. Skinner
Okay sci-fi fans....here is something to think about and of course...I would love to hear your comments on this Time Travelling Paradox.


In the 1st Terminator movie....Kyle Reece is sent back in time by John Conner to save the life of Sarah Conner. In doing so, he falls in love and fathers a child, which we later find out is John Conner himself.

But alas, Kyle Reece dies and therefore cannot fight in the war against the machines as we have learned he did.

Therefore, if time were to continue on from that point in which Kyle Reece dies...John Conner would live up to the leader he was born to be, but never know Kyle Reece in the future, and therefore never be able to send him back in time to save his mother and be his own Father. The Terminator would in fact travel back in time, but without Kyle Reece being sent back to save his Mother, the Terminator would suceed in killing her and therefore there would be no John Conner and he would cease to exist. ( namely due to the reason that Kyle would not be sent back as well, and not be there for Sarah to fall in love with, or Father a child with her )

You just made a mistake thinking that because the old Kyle died in the past the younger Kyle never grew up. Which is not a given.

Reese was from the future. He went back in time and fathered john conner. Reese died in the past, but this doesnt mean that he will never be born to meet john conner in the future. Now, if reese was killed before he met john conner, john conner would still have been born, but by a different father. John Conner was born at least once by a different father than Reese.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
Reese was from the future. He went back in time and fathered john conner. Reese died in the past, but this doesnt mean that he will never be born to meet john conner in the future. Now, if reese was killed before he met john conner, john conner would still have been born, but by a different father. John Conner was born at least once by a different father than Reese. Are you sure of that?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Are you sure of that?

I'm not sure of anything when it comes to hypothetical time paradoxes, but i'd say it's a safe assumption. There had to have been one original time line with no alternate time lines ahead of it at one point.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
I'm not sure of anything when it comes to hypothetical time paradoxes, but i'd say it's a safe assumption. There had to have been one original time line with no alternate time lines ahead of it at one point.

I think that's only the case if you assume that time is like a stream that goes. If you see time and space as a full picture then Kyle could always have been John's father.

i dont know, that just doesn't connect with me. I guess i could see that some where along the line Reese existed in the same time as Sarah Conner. time is very linear to me, so i see its beginning starting as a linear stream. How would you suggest that Reese was the original father of John?

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
i dont know, that just doesn't connect with me. I guess i could see that some where along the line Reese existed in the same time as Sarah Conner. time is very linear to me, so i see its beginning starting as a linear stream. How would you suggest that Reese was the original father of John? Well, you just have to get rid of the understanding of linear progression. It is not necessarily correct.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, you just have to get rid of the understanding of linear progression. It is not necessarily correct.

could you further explain what you mean? I dont see how one can get to 8 without first going through 7. Do you mean to suggest, maybe, that time has no rules or one's different than we think?

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
could you further explain what you mean? I dont see how one can get to 8 without first going through 7. Do you mean to suggest, maybe, that time has no rules or one's different than we think?

Yes.

What you think is that time works like this:

1->2->3->-4


What I am saying is that maybe time is as such doesn't exist. And the points just are together independently without time (at the same time if you want.

Like this:

|4213|

And the time we perceive comes from our inability to see them together.

Imagine it like a comic book. You are reading page for page. But, in the book the whole story is already there

There is no paradox in the Terminator movies. The creation of onr or multiple paradoxes assumes a linear construction of time. Instead, think of Past, Prenet and Future as components of time that, like wavelengths of light, exist both independently and interdependently. Or, think of three spinning plates, all atop one another. Plate A and Plate C spin in a clockwise direction on the Y axis. Plate B in between them spins counter-clockwise on the Y axis. Simple enough. Given that all plates spin at the same RPM, any point on any plate will co-exist on its nascent plate at a rate of 1/(x-3)^3 Now, there is some added complexity, because the plates also spin on the X axis, and cannot tauch, though they are an infinitesmally small distance apart, but that requires a heavy amount of non-linear calculus to define.

The example of The Terminator "paradox" is that John Conner cannot be born because his father, Kyle Reece dies before he is born. This is nonsense. Kyle was sent back in the past by a John Conner completely unaware that Kyle was, in fact, his father. Instances of "Kyle," "John," "Sarah," and all the teminator machines exist on all three plates simultaneously. Because there are three plates and instances can and do move from one plate to another constantly, there is no violation of the laws of thermodynamics, principally, that no matter or energy can be created or destroyed. You might also think of it as instnaces having their origins in the future, passing through the present, and flowing into the past all through a closed medium, that is: time.

There is no john conner or kyle paradox but there is a sarah conner john conner paradox thanks to the tv show

it said that they were still alive in 1999 but sarah died in 1997 to make sure judgment day didn't happen.
and T2 supposedly took place in 1995 when john was 10 then in 1999 he is all of a sudden 17 or 18?

Originally posted by darthmaul1
There is no john conner or kyle paradox but there is a sarah conner john conner paradox thanks to the tv show

it said that they were still alive in 1999 but sarah died in 1997 to make sure judgment day didn't happen.
and T2 supposedly took place in 1995 when john was 10 then in 1999 he is all of a sudden 17 or 18?

That's not a paradox. That's just retarded.

The answer is simple by Kyle going back in time and becoming the father of John Conner he created an alternate time line.

Not to go off topic but the same thing happened in the dragon ball z anime. The character trunks goes back in time to find the protagonist of the show to prevent the hero from dying of a heart attack so he could fend off cyborgs in his future. To his dismay different cyborgs showed up because his meddling created an alternate future and proceeded to go back to his own future and told his mother of the alternate timelines' events...

One more great example is back to the future II where the scientist explains that a different time line was created.

The old terminator model told John Conner that he killed him in terminator 3 in his future. It's obvious since John knows the truth he will be more careful and probably a new time line was created. The key phrase that everyone mentioned including Sarah Connor that "it's not the future that they were told about".This is because of recent events.

Mr Chapps is right

This whole thread was never about a paradox, it was just about a misunderstanding of Kyle's timeline.

The paradox in the Terminator films is how Skynet's invention of itself is dependant upon its invention of itself; technically speaking it should never have existed, on that logic.

There is no paradox, but apparently the mega-intelligent AI of the future really isn't all that bright.

In each Terminator movie, the machines are trying to kill John Connor directly or indirectly, each time doing so at a later date than the time before.

Take Terminator 3. The beginning of the movie talks about how John lives 'off the grid' so that he can't be found by the machines. The TX gets sent back in time to start polishing off his lieutenants, as if that was the only solution the machines of the future could come up with.

WHY?!?

If they have a TIME MACHINE, they wouldn't CARE if he lives off the grid in his late teens. What stops them from just sending the TX back to the SAME time they sent the first terminator? If they were able to send Arnold back in time with enough accuracy to give him a chance to kill Sarah Connor before she dies on her own, they could have easily had Arnold, the T1000, and the TX all trying to kill Sarah back when she was a gunshy hippie.

EVEN IF the humans did the same, it would be Arnold, the T1000, and the TX versus a gunshy Sarah Connor, Kyle, and a reprogrammed Arnold. Quick math says that's a dead Sarah Connor.

The Kyle Reese father thing is not a paradox but there are plenty in the terminator movies and even more in the TV series.

The most glaring one is in T3 Rise of the machines when the Terminator takes John Connor and Kate Brewster to the Cemetery to retrieve the weapons from Sarah's Grave. Neither Connor or Brewster seems to know what is in the coffin but the terminator does. So the information about the weapons has no source.


Also the movies seem to imply a "timeline protection theory" that is, sending the first terminator back in time to kill Sara Connor alerts her to the existence of these machines in the future setting off the chain of events that lead her to be in hiding on judgement day. (the machines actions caused the future they remember). If they had not taken any action at all she very possibly could have died on judgement day,...would that create a causality loop?

I didn't like the TV series because there are too many paradoxes. for example...A guy named Billy Wisher tells Derek Reese that his real name is Andy Goode and that he is responsible for the creation of Skynet. After Derek Reese goes back in time, he shoots and kills Andy Goode. So now he cannot be there to tell Derek his real name in the future. little things like that annoyed me in the TV series.

Originally posted by iraiam
I didn't like the TV series because there are too many paradoxes. for example...A guy named Billy Wisher tells Derek Reese that his real name is Andy Goode and that he is responsible for the creation of Skynet. After Derek Reese goes back in time, he shoots and kills Andy Goode. So now he cannot be there to tell Derek his real name in the future. little things like that annoyed me in the TV series.

Ah the good old grand father paradox, if i go back in time and kill my grandfather before i or my father was born then i wouldn't exist in the future, but how could I go back in time and kill him then?
once you get to stuff like that you end up creating alternate time lines

Once reese finds out that billy is andy in the future he then goes back in time and kills him he will never have that conversation in the future again cause andy is now dead.

They really messed that up in back to the future 2, where marty and the chick go 30 years ahead to do something about their kids?? once they get 30 years ahead they will arrive at a time where they haven't existed for 30 years, cause they left in 1985.
same thing with Biff taking the time machine back to 1955 and giving himself the almanac, when he returned to 2015 he would arrive in a time where he would be the ruler of the city, but when he came back nothing changed

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, you just have to get rid of the understanding of linear progression. It is not necessarily correct.

The German is right.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
This whole thread was never about a paradox, it was just about a misunderstanding of Kyle's timeline.

The paradox in the Terminator films is how Skynet's invention of itself is dependant upon its invention of itself; technically speaking it should never have existed, on that logic.

Indeed.

I hope that the religious musings of the series don't take that ball and run to with it to point of implying the cybernetic equivalent of the immaculate conception or try to render Skynet's origin as being a god's will thing...

If that happens, im out.

Originally posted by darthmaul1
when he returned to 2015 he would arrive in a time where he would be the ruler of the city, but when he came back nothing changed

Actually no he wouldn't would he? By the Back to the Future rules, these things seem to have some delay before catching up, else Marty would have instantly vanished the moment he messed up the past in the original film. It's always been based around this slow degeneration as the timelines 'catch up'.

So when Biff returns to the future, he would begun to stop existing as Biff was no longer living by then, in the altered timeline (his wife killed him).


And yes, meanwhile, if people are going to be unhappy with "Reese kills Andy so how did he know to kill Andy" you may as ell never watch ANY Terminator stuff at all- films or tv series- as the whole premise of trying to kill Connor in the past would create such a logical hitch as well. It's not worth thinking too much into it, to be hones.t Like I say, we have this whole self-creation paradox; it's a standard sci-fi staple. Sure, it seems logically impossible, but no more than lightsabres, ships making noises in space, or the rules they use as to what tech you can bring back in time with you in Terminator...

Originally posted by Cerran
There is no paradox, but apparently the mega-intelligent AI of the future really isn't all that bright.

In each Terminator movie, the machines are trying to kill John Connor directly or indirectly, each time doing so at a later date than the time before.

Take Terminator 3. The beginning of the movie talks about how John lives 'off the grid' so that he can't be found by the machines. The TX gets sent back in time to start polishing off his lieutenants, as if that was the only solution the machines of the future could come up with.

WHY?!?

If they have a TIME MACHINE, they wouldn't CARE if he lives off the grid in his late teens. What stops them from just sending the TX back to the SAME time they sent the first terminator? If they were able to send Arnold back in time with enough accuracy to give him a chance to kill Sarah Connor before she dies on her own, they could have easily had Arnold, the T1000, and the TX all trying to kill Sarah back when she was a gunshy hippie.

EVEN IF the humans did the same, it would be Arnold, the T1000, and the TX versus a gunshy Sarah Connor, Kyle, and a reprogrammed Arnold. Quick math says that's a dead Sarah Connor.



I like this train of thought....if skynet has the intellegence to send back a Terminator to kill whomever gave birth to John Connor (Sarah Connor), then why not send one back to kill Sarah's mother, or Sarah's grandmother, or her great-great-great grandfather, for that matter....

You see where I'm going with this.

Either way you look at it, time being linear or a like a pre-written book etc; if Sarah Connor is never born, the machines could have saved themselves a whole lot of bother.....?



But the thing which has been interesting me is the existance of Skynet itself.

At the end of the first film, the Terminator which has been sent back by Skynet to destroy Sarah Conner is crushed in an industrial press, leaving only the broken remain of an arm. Miles Dyson, working for a regular blue-chip firm at the time, discovers the arm, analyses its alien structure and from this develops the neural-net processor.

This processor then goes on to become the rudimentary building-block of the entire Skynet system, as we know.

Now for the arm to exist, Skynet MUST have sent back a Terminator for the arm to get discovered, so that the technology for Skynet can be developed.

So far so good, but Skynet sent back the machine to kill Sarah Connor. If this Terminator had succeeded in its mission, the arm would not have been available for Miles Dyson's discovery, and therefore he would not have developed the technology for Skynet to exist.

If the original Terminator had killed Sarah Connor as intended, the Terminator which did it would instantly dissapear from space and time, Skynet would never exist and the world would carry on as normal (minus Sarah Connor, of course)

It is, of course, the fate of humanity that Sarah destroys the machine, so that she can live on to concieve John, who, subsequently will ensure the survial of the human race. But if she HAD been killed, there would be no war anyway. Skynet would have destroyed itself and John's existance would be irrelevant.

So in actual fact, Skynet it pretty dumb. It's a lose-lose situation for the machine.... it tries to prevent its destruction by killing Sarah, but fails. But if it had succeeded, it would have destroyed itself anyway. Fail.

The moral of the story is, computers are stupid.

Now i'm going to post this before mine crashes.....

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
could you further explain what you mean? I dont see how one can get to 8 without first going through 7. Do you mean to suggest, maybe, that time has no rules or one's different than we think? There is no paradox because whatever happened, happened. Kyle always went back in time, he always fathered John Connor, John Connor always sent him back in time. Think of it like this, time is a stream: its always moving. Say you're floating down that stream in a inner-tube, and you see yourself, which makes you freak out and swim over to the dry land on the banks of the stream (which is a metaphor for inventing a time machine.) Now, wanting to see what happened and if it actually was you or not, you quickly run down the stream to where you just where (travel in time) and jump in, hoping to get a glimpse of yourself, seeing yourself. But you don't see anybody, you just see yourself, who is looking at you in bewilderment.

Get it? Its an infinite loop, because you'd understand that it was you travelling back in time and the younger you would go over to the dry land, invent a time machine, and start the loop all over again. I understand if that analogy is hard to grasp, but that's how I was taught a few years back and its the one I've grown accustomed to.


But, like Ush said, Skynet inventing itself is sort of a paradox, unless, of course, someone was already inventing the technology of Skynet in their basement somewhere, which then would become the Skynet that we know and love...or hate.

I don't see what is so hard to understand. Connor knew his father's name from his mother. He found him in the future and sent him back in time. Reese being younger than Connor was obviously born after him. So he got sent back in time to father Connor and to protect sarah. So no matter what he's gonna be born sometime after or around Judgment day. Then he'll eventually meet Connor to be, eventually, sent back in time. Where he dies. Its as if he just lived his life normally, only he ended it in a different time.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
There is no paradox because whatever happened, happened. Kyle always went back in time, he always fathered John Connor, John Connor always sent him back in time. Think of it like this, time is a stream: its always moving. Say you're floating down that stream in a inner-tube, and you see yourself, which makes you freak out and swim over to the dry land on the banks of the stream (which is a metaphor for inventing a time machine.) Now, wanting to see what happened and if it actually was you or not, you quickly run down the stream to where you just where (travel in time) and jump in, hoping to get a glimpse of yourself, seeing yourself. But you don't see anybody, you just see yourself, who is looking at you in bewilderment.

Get it? Its an infinite loop, because you'd understand that it was you travelling back in time and the younger you would go over to the dry land, invent a time machine, and start the loop all over again. I understand if that analogy is hard to grasp, but that's how I was taught a few years back and its the one I've grown accustomed to.


But, like Ush said, Skynet inventing itself is sort of a paradox, unless, of course, someone was already inventing the technology of Skynet in their basement somewhere, which then would become the Skynet that we know and love...or hate.


One of the major things missed is the fact that something HAS to happen before you can go back and observe it. For example.

I was just the first person ever to invent a time machine and I want to travel back in time to the Civil War (just as an example). In order for me to travel back to the Civil War I must know about the Civil War right? Meaning I read that there was a great war that occurred back in the 1860's. The fact that I know and understand that this war existed means that it already happened correct? So an event must happen before you can return to observe it otherwise you would be returning to observe nothing. So I hop in my time machine and travel back and I watch the Civil War take place. I notice that while I am there I don't see any other copies of myself.. meaning that was the first time I had traveled back in time to view the Civil War. So an event must occur at least once in order for it to be observed.

Sure I can travel back to the Revolutionary War and try to stop the civil war from happening and may even succeed in doing so. But the Civil War still happened before I traveled back in time otherwise what would I be trying to stop?

The best possible and logical solution for the Kyle Reese problem is.

1) John was born to an unknown father and lived a regular childhood. Later on he was the leader of the resistance and sent Kyle Reese back to protect his mother before she even met the unknown father. They had a baby. (because an event must occur in order to revisit it) Forever changing the timeline of events. The Terminator movies never show the original timeline so it is difficult to grasp. There can be many other theories like this but the bottom line is John Conner had to be born before Kyle Reese could go back and protect the mother.

Time does not have to be linear like others have mentioned. You don't need to go from 1-7 you just need 1-7 to exist.

The comic book analogy is a little misleading. Sure you read page by page when the whole story is written but in order for you to be reading page by page the story HAD to be written. You can read from the back to the front, from the middle to the beginning etc. The story in the book is there but in order for you to skip to any part of it the story needs to be there for you to skip to. You can't skip to page 11 if page 11 was never written.

My Physics professor layed it out simple for us. He asked if you could go back in time and kill Hitler and end the Holocaust would you do it? Everyone said yes they would. He said why would you do that? Everyone said to stop the Holocaust because it was so evil. So the fact that all you guys want to go back to stop the Holocaust means that the Holocaust happened correct? Yes we said. He said well that must mean no-one has gone back to stop it yet. Thats what woke me up to the simple theory of time travel and paradoxes.

This is just a theory because in reality no-one knows how time travel works. I wrote it like I "Know" what I'm talking about because its easier to describe a theory that way. Fun thread!

Originally posted by Macstar
One of the major things missed is the fact that something HAS to happen before you can go back and observe it. For example.

I notice that while I am there I don't see any other copies of myself.. meaning that was the first time I had traveled back in time to view the Civil War. So an event must occur at least once in order for it to be observed. It, probably, doesn't work like that: if you travel back in time, let's say to the civil war, and you don't see another version of yourself, that means that you only ever travelled back to the civil war once in your life, ie the one time that you're doing it now.

Um, what? If you tried to stop the Civil war from happening, whatever you did already played a part in the war. Lets say you traveled back to prevent John Wilkes Booth from killing Lincoln, and you decide to grab a gun from a local store and put it in your pocket. Later that night, Booth steals your gun and uses it to kill Lincoln, meaning that you were apart of the reason why Lincoln died.

You're either forgetting or overlooking the fact that its time travel, meaning the event happened that sent Reese back happened with Reese there all the while. Just because Reese was sent back in the future does not mean he wasn't there in the past all the time.

I never used the comic book analogy, and as such, I don't view time travel like that.

Well, your physics professor has a divergent view on time travel. If the person went back to stop the Holocaust, that person simply failed or did something to cause the Holocaust. Just because someone goes back (or went back, in my mind) it doesn't mean they're going to succeed. Who knows, maybe they failed.

Its fine, we're just talking. And I hope you see my reply post in the same light as I did yours.

Thanks for the reply Darth!!

My whole point was that an even needs to occur before it can be traveled back to. The Holocaust example I think sums it up perfectly. If you went back in time to stop the Holocaust you must be aware that the Holocaust occurred.

So in that light John Conner must have been born before Kyle Reese could travel back to protect his mother. As such in this theory an even must happen before it can be traveled back to John Conner must have been born to another father.

Here some food for thought. I'd love to keep this discussion going. If Kyle Reese were to travel back in time and get hit by a bus and die before he could meet up with Sarah Conner would John still be born? Would love to hear some theories!

Thanks again for the response

Unfortunately, macstar, that';s not a particularly insightful thing that your professor said. It;s pretty much page 1 of the 'possible reason why time travel either does or does not work' book, but that book has become VERY thick over time, with paradoxes, parallel universes, fitting into place like a jigsaw puzzle etc. all suggested by physicists over time.

We can only argue here by the rules of the setting. The setting rules clearly state that you can change the past and alter the present, even if that means the history that caused you to go back and alter it no longer exists.

41 replies but 15,000 views? What the Buick is this shit?

It's like Back To The Future...people use time travel just to go back in time & try & bang a younger HOTTER version of their moms.

I didn't mind the first back to the future but the 2nd one had too big of a paradox for me with them going ahead in time and seeing themselves in the future I don't think that would happen cause you would be arriving in a future where you didn't exist for 30 years. They got it right in the Sarah Conner chronicles when they jumped ahead in time.

Theres also one in a recent Terminator comic 'Terminator 2029'

where the Kyle Reese that we end up seeing in T1 meets another Kyle Reese, But does'nt relize it is him and this other one who survived his encounter with the T-800 and has been held captive up to the year of 2029.