I understand your point. But let's suppose that oo != 1 + oo. Let's make oo work just like sqrt(-1). We don't add or subtract from it, except if we're adding or subtracting another sqrt(-1) (or another oo if that's what we're dealing with). I hope I'm not saying something absurd regarding sqrt(-1)? Why should sqrt(-1) be allowed in the game, but not oo?
None x Not: not my first language either. Both sound ok to me, regardless of which is (most) grammatically correct.
My little pun was that causality violation, as I understand it, would either pass unnoticed (intervention from the future always happening under our nose) or implode the universe all over time (we'd be dead before we're born or something like that).
You can add infinity to the number system just fine. In doing so you would want to preserve rules of the standard number system (e.g. a+b = b+a, (ab)c = a(bc)).
Thank you! My ego loves when one of my "doesn't feel right" feelings seem to be confirmed.
Another big thanks for clarifying where the infinity problem was in this topic.
My bad. My point was that sqrt(-1) also isn't a number, or maybe I got it wrong? I always had a hard time accepting that we can play with sqrt(-1) but we can't play with oo.
As I'm no math nerd, perhaps someone who is can explain why infinity is disallowed? I finally figured out why you can't divide by zero; 10/2=5, 5/2=2.5, but if you use numbers smaller than one it is reversed; 1/.5=2, 1/.05=20, so anything divided by zero would be infinity. Is the universe infinite? If so, how can it be studied mathematically?
I'm no math nerd either, but what I remember is that since it has no end (infinite), you can't add or subtract from it because it still has no end after that. That's all fine, but irrational numbers don't exist, yet we use them in arithmetic. I don't know why we just can't use infinity the same way and do magic tricks like:
oo - oo = 0 oo / oo = 1 etc. (Note: oo = infinity. ∞ and ∞ not supported on Slashdot.)
The 500 million year graph looks at *long term* climate changes, not localized short-term weather cycles.
The point that you seem to miss (or intentionally ignore) is that we're talking about climate variations within 100 years. If you put that into the 50 million year perspective, it will disappear in the graph. It doesn't disappear because nature has a lot more impact than human beings. It disappears because the 50-million year perspective is irrelevant to the human race as we know it today.
Meanwhile, your grandsons may visit what today is our coastline if they know how to scuba dive.
I'd certainly prefer a future where AGW is not a reality. But instead of just hoping for it and shout phony at it like you insist in doing with your blind defense of "freedom" (your freedom now, screw the rest), I prefer the idea of avoiding the worst case scenario by replacing insensitive development with a responsible one. It's not like it kills progress. It just demands a little more effort.
Actually, he was just saying that he thinks Portugal to be the only trustworthy among the listed ore producers. He was in no way saying anything negative about Portugal.
I'd have modded it Flamebait, not Troll, for two reasons:
Now whose rant looks stupid?
1. You seemed to be the only one ranting. 2. Once your point about Africa having an industrial boom and worsening the problem showed to be moot, you seemed to adopt the "let's do nothing". This allied with (1) gave me the impression that you just wanted to be declared winner.
You really don't see a difference? I see Google first refusing to censor, then abiding to China's government after being threatened out of the country. But they censor "precisely" what was asked: searches in China. It may be a lucky implementation coincidence, but that's the fact in question. Google censors in China only because they couldn't get a better compromise.
Then I see Bing censoring not only searches in China but everywhere in the world. As far as I know, nobody asked Bing to do that. It may be an unhappy implementation coincidence, but that's the fact in question. Bing censors everywhere, and they could have gotten a better compromise if they tried.
You're right, neither is clean, but I still see a difference and I find it to be non negligible.
I remain skeptical. There are frequently dozens of people waiting to cast their vote in the room where the machine is and a dozens of rooms in schools that serve as election posts. I can't think of a way to filter one machine from another then match a vote caught with that technique with a person. Worse if you have to record and decode it afterwards.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, don't sit there in your anonymity. Go ask Obama what's with all the promised changes.
I wouldn't go for anything less than Kanine X-Feces.
Why, all of them, whoever they are!
Latest US Navy project: Mega Maid.
Robocop vision for the masses!! Sweeeeeet...
I understand your point. But let's suppose that oo != 1 + oo. Let's make oo work just like sqrt(-1). We don't add or subtract from it, except if we're adding or subtracting another sqrt(-1) (or another oo if that's what we're dealing with). I hope I'm not saying something absurd regarding sqrt(-1)? Why should sqrt(-1) be allowed in the game, but not oo?
None x Not: not my first language either. Both sound ok to me, regardless of which is (most) grammatically correct.
My little pun was that causality violation, as I understand it, would either pass unnoticed (intervention from the future always happening under our nose) or implode the universe all over time (we'd be dead before we're born or something like that).
You can add infinity to the number system just fine. In doing so you would want to preserve rules of the standard number system (e.g. a+b = b+a, (ab)c = a(bc)).
Thank you! My ego loves when one of my "doesn't feel right" feelings seem to be confirmed.
Another big thanks for clarifying where the infinity problem was in this topic.
s/irrational/complex/
My bad. My point was that sqrt(-1) also isn't a number, or maybe I got it wrong? I always had a hard time accepting that we can play with sqrt(-1) but we can't play with oo.
You got it! It's Microsoft's version to Opera Unite! And to think they had it all along...
Looks like you went to the wrong article.
I don't think we've ever stumbled upon a phenomena that suggests FTL in our universe.
Not that we noticed : )
As I'm no math nerd, perhaps someone who is can explain why infinity is disallowed? I finally figured out why you can't divide by zero; 10/2=5, 5/2=2.5, but if you use numbers smaller than one it is reversed; 1/.5=2, 1/.05=20, so anything divided by zero would be infinity. Is the universe infinite? If so, how can it be studied mathematically?
I'm no math nerd either, but what I remember is that since it has no end (infinite), you can't add or subtract from it because it still has no end after that. That's all fine, but irrational numbers don't exist, yet we use them in arithmetic. I don't know why we just can't use infinity the same way and do magic tricks like:
oo - oo = 0
oo / oo = 1
etc.
(Note: oo = infinity. ∞ and ∞ not supported on Slashdot.)
Any math lord reading this thread?
It makes one wonder what he smokes...
This sounds awfully familiar... Oh yeah, here.
Work on research. Search for a more interesting job. And deserve it!
With progress, the boring day-to-day jobs shift from one field to the next. If you don't pay attention, you fall into these jobs.
Boring day-to-day tasks always existed, they just became a lot more noticed with industrialization.
Unless you are particularly gifted, the only way you'll escape from these jobs is with your own effort or a lot, lot of luck.
The 500 million year graph looks at *long term* climate changes, not localized short-term weather cycles.
The point that you seem to miss (or intentionally ignore) is that we're talking about climate variations within 100 years. If you put that into the 50 million year perspective, it will disappear in the graph. It doesn't disappear because nature has a lot more impact than human beings. It disappears because the 50-million year perspective is irrelevant to the human race as we know it today.
Meanwhile, your grandsons may visit what today is our coastline if they know how to scuba dive.
I'd certainly prefer a future where AGW is not a reality. But instead of just hoping for it and shout phony at it like you insist in doing with your blind defense of "freedom" (your freedom now, screw the rest), I prefer the idea of avoiding the worst case scenario by replacing insensitive development with a responsible one. It's not like it kills progress. It just demands a little more effort.
I'm a nudist, you insensitive clod!
Mr. Hamsterdan? Hello, this is Apple. Your court hearing for EULA breach will be next week. Don't forget your wallet!
Joao is as common for Portuguese speakers as John for English speakers, so I wouldn't be too quick in considering both to be the same person.
Actually, he was just saying that he thinks Portugal to be the only trustworthy among the listed ore producers. He was in no way saying anything negative about Portugal.
I'd have modded it Flamebait, not Troll, for two reasons:
Now whose rant looks stupid?
1. You seemed to be the only one ranting.
2. Once your point about Africa having an industrial boom and worsening the problem showed to be moot, you seemed to adopt the "let's do nothing". This allied with (1) gave me the impression that you just wanted to be declared winner.
You really don't see a difference? I see Google first refusing to censor, then abiding to China's government after being threatened out of the country. But they censor "precisely" what was asked: searches in China. It may be a lucky implementation coincidence, but that's the fact in question. Google censors in China only because they couldn't get a better compromise.
Then I see Bing censoring not only searches in China but everywhere in the world. As far as I know, nobody asked Bing to do that. It may be an unhappy implementation coincidence, but that's the fact in question. Bing censors everywhere, and they could have gotten a better compromise if they tried.
You're right, neither is clean, but I still see a difference and I find it to be non negligible.
And you can do that regardless of votes being cast on paper or with a machine.
I remain skeptical. There are frequently dozens of people waiting to cast their vote in the room where the machine is and a dozens of rooms in schools that serve as election posts. I can't think of a way to filter one machine from another then match a vote caught with that technique with a person. Worse if you have to record and decode it afterwards.