Everything we do in logic and math depends upon at least a few ungrounded axioms in the end.
"Fairies exist, what kind of evidence are you asking for?!"
The sample suggests that X is probable <-- evidence
The sample is representative of the set <-- held axiomatically
Therefore X is probable
Either we break down the axiom into a sub argument, or we part ways, there isn't much more you can do when an argument comes down to your axioms.
The way axioms work I can justifiably say that X is probable to people that hold the axiom, and have no grounds to tell people that don't hold the axiom, that X is probable.
I don't intend to provide a sub argument for this axiom, you're welcome to provide one against it, but if neither of us intends to defend a side on that there's really nothing more we can do here.
Epd's aren't as controlled as a simple function call, invalid illustration
I'm illustrating how we take rather small portions of a whole and call it representative in support (not empirical support, mind you) of my axiom. EPD's are not relevant here, and I am not claiming that.
Corruption can cause overflows. Corruption creates non dat based overflows. Your sequence there has no grounds.
Overflows cause corruption, corruption causes more overflows, but that's rooted in (based on) your first overflow (usually, there are other ways to cause corruption none of which have much to do with extended units (ids above 227))
that was my original statement (though I used the, perhaps ambiguous, words 'based in'), nonetheless I enjoyed the tangential argument, thanks for having it 
Vrael -- Ultraviolet
Ultraviolet -- How about you all send me your minerals instead of washing them into the gambling void? I'm saving up for a new name color and/or glow
O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- o, due to a donation i now have enough minerals to send you minerals
