Offtopic...rant...
on
Prime Obsession
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Why is it, that if you have studied math that people get you these books for Christmas, etc. People say, "Wow, he's into math, I'm sure he'd like that", when books like this are written for the lay person, as a fun introduction to the subject. People don't get Literature majors "Shakespeare for Dummies".
Random mutation can lead to advantageous effects, I suppose, over time, but I think altering a distribution of a known variation based on a global event could happen, but in a much longer term than we are discussing.
* Homosexuality - There are theories that nature uses homosexuality to help control population sizes. The basic theory is that when a population reaches a size that can no longer be naturally supported by the environment that homosexual tendencies become more prevelant. Of course it could just be that the percentage of gay people hasn't changed, it's just that there are more now since the overall population is growing.
What I never understand about these claims is that if homosexuality is genetic, and more likely with overpopulation, how do the individual sperm and egg know which genes to turn on? I don't think individual gene "choices" are aware of population, so while there may be a probabilistic component, how could it possibly be affected by population? The only possible way I could see that is if somehow a mother "knows" biologically how many kids she has had and that maybe the genetics of later childern could be affected. Sheer speculation on my part, but how would population as a whole be able to affect one's sexual orientation, genetically?
No, my bad. it is based on Bohemian Rhapsody and it is not an original work, but I can not find an author attribution anywhere. google "imperial rhapsody"
Summary from the article In "Shadows," the technology of the ancient and extinct Shadow race is being unleashed upon the galaxy by an unknown force, and Earthforce intelligence officer Diane Baker, whose brother was recently killed in a mysterious explosion, it out to find out who is behind the intergalactic conspiracy.
Sounds more like Legend of the Rangers than the Telepath War, which is what some of us figured any feature film would be about. Too bad.
(blatantly stolen - sung to Inperial Rhapsody) LANDO: This is the good life, This is a fantasy
Working on Bespin, An escape from Reality. LEIA: Open your eyes, Stand up to these guys and see. LUKE: I'm just a farmboy, I need some sympathy, Cuz who's my dad, I dunno R2-D2, R2-D2,
R2-D2, R2-D2,
R2-D2, Where'd ya go? C-3PO O O O O O OH!
I'm just a farmboy, nobody loves me.
REBELS: He's just a farmboy, with a dead family.
Spare him this life of such mundacity!
HAN: Spice'll come, spice'll go. Jabba let me go.
JABBA: Bo shuda! (NO, we will not let you go)
HAN: Let me go!
JABBA: Bo shuda! (We will not let you go)
HAN: Let me go!
JABBA: Bo shuda! (We will not let you go)
HAN: LET ME GO!
JABBA: WILL NO LET YOU GO!
HAN: LET ME GO!
JABBA: WILL NOT LET YOU GO!
HAN: LET ME GO!
JABBA: NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!
C3PO: Oh R2-D2, R2-D2, R2-D2, Come along.
LEIA: C-3PO has a rebel put aside for meeeee, for meeeeee, for
MEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
(Stormtroopers start headbanging)
LUKE: So you say you're the dear old dad of mine?
But you cut my hand off and left me to die!
Oh Vader, can't do this to me, Vader.
I know there's some good, I know there's still some good in you.
OBIWAN: May the Force be with you.
Use the Force to see.
May the Force be with you,
May the Force be with you, alwaaaaaaaaaaaaays.
HAN: Anywhere the Force goes, doesn't really mat-ter, to meeeeeeee.
Interesting... I'm going to kind of wander off topic here a little bit but I just had a thought.
I remember learning about Joseph McCarthy in school, and about all the fear and paranoia of communism and an imminent Soviet invasion, all that stuff in the 1950's. (As an aside, if you haven't seen it, go rent The Atomic Cafe, scary stuff) But looking back now, with certain key events, it is kind of understandable.
1949 Chinese communists win civil war in China 1949 Russia gets the A bomb 1951 Russia gets the H bomb (not exactly sure about the year here) That with the Korean war, much like the war on terror today, it must have seemed that there were communists under every rock, with the government gladly fueling the fire.
Point taken, although I tried to make the distinction by using a capital C in Communism, referring to the traditional totalitarian states that we saw during the Cold War.
True, but similarly to lynchings in the American South, anonymous violence is very hard to prosecute. And hired violence, paid for by people in power, is also hard to prosecute.
Unfettered capitalism, without any government intervention, was similar to what you saw in the US in the 19th century. It tends to result (over time) in child labor, 7 day work weeks for the lower class, and the rise of fewer and fewer companies. The tendency now is more toward that direction. Unions aren't a natural function of capitalism, they are the result of worker exploitation over a number of years. Without legal protections, unions would be broken, violently. They may seem bureaucratic now, but the "free market", assuming fair competition, is fine, but I believe it ultimately leads to monopolies if left to itself. Look at all the mergers now, just as an example.
This is simple. China has the capacity to do some real damage to us, they have a space program, probably have some ICBMs, definitely have nuclear weapsons. War with China would have terrible ramifications on US soil. Other smaller countries that we preemtively invade will only kill our troops, and we don't show coffins on tv anymore, so that's just a blurb on the news.
This is still a country with a Communist government (modified, granted, but still not democratic) who has never recognized the independence of Taiwan, who blocks its citizens from portions of the internet at the national level, and brutally rolled over demonstrators in Tienaman (sp) square. What do you think they would go?
The worst part of the whole thing is that China is a capitalist's dream, cheap labor, who have no chance to redress grievances. No wonder we can't compete.
To those who say that economic capitalism leads to democracy, we'll just have to wait and see. I'm not holding my breath.
but I looked over the ruling, and it said basically on all counts that the case was "dismissed with prejudice". Some of the rebuttals were of the form
1) Eldred vs. Ashcroft said this, so we can't overturn that, try to go to the Supreme Court.
2) People live longer now so copyrights should last longer (for kids and such)
3) Congress carefully considers the meaning of "promotes the progress of arts and science" every time they extend this
4) Technology increases the amount of time a given work is "valuable", (tell that to the RIAA, or anyone using an old version of Windows) and thus extending the copyright gives authors even more of an incentive to create.
My question though is that since all charges are "dismissed with prejudice" is there any grounds for an appeal?
The lie-detector episode that ends with Beavis arrested as the "Hippie Ripper". "When asked how a teenage boy could have committed the brutal murders over twenty years ago, a police spokeswoman said, quote, "He's very clever.""
Files you captured yourself (which I presume are legal, video tapes are, say off HBO), from those you downloaded. I realize that due to the DMCA you aren't allowed to rip DVDs because of encryption, but what about HBO feeds?
create a function on x where x ranges over the positive integers such that every integer maps to itself. f(n) = n.
f(1) = 1 and f(f(1)) = 1 f(2) = 2 and f(f(2)) = 2 f(3) = 3 and f(f(3)) = 3
..
.. f(x) = x and f(f(x)) = x
Do you agree that the function, when applied to the (infinitely large) range of positive integers will give an infinitely large set, and that every integer in the set will, when put through the function give itself as a result, and that every result can be mapped 1-1 to the set of positive intergers? If any of my assumptions or intentions is not correct, then my whole thought is not correct.
We can now list the numbers resulting from the application of the function to the positive integers, pad the results on the left with zeros to make all the entries in the list the same length, and apply Cantor's diagonal argument.
This will result in a number, and because the function is f(number) = number, the entry that maps to the number found in the diagonalization must be arrived at when run through the f(x) = x function.
Ok, there are two things here. First, you can not "pad to the left" to make all the numbers of equal length. For any finite set of numbers, it can be done, because there is a maximum number of digits. If you pad with an INFINITE number of zeros on each, I suppose they would be the same length, but then you are dealing with numbers with an infinite number of digits. Natural numbers never have an "infinite" number of digits (for example the number 111...... forever is NOT a natural number). Natural numbers have can be arbitrarily large, but finite. If you had an infinite number of zeros before every number, your new number (assuming you take "digit 1" of 000.........1, and "digit 2" of 000........2, etc, something other than zero for each digit would give you an infinite sequence of digits, but not a natural number.
In fact, it IS the case that the set of infinite sequences of digits is uncountable, but the crux of the matter here I think is understanding the difference between "infinite" and "finite, but arbitrarily large".
Basically this entire thing comes down to a proof by contradiction. The general logic in that claim goes something like this 1) Let's assume f(n) for all 1,2,3... infinity contains all the possible values for my set 2) I can show that this is not true, by coming up with a member of the set which is not f(n) for any n.
You may say "bullshit", it's one of the f(n)'s.
Then I'll say "ok, which one is it"
Then you'll say, f(1085), for example.
Then I'll say, no it's not, because the 1085th "sequence" (or digit or however this is done) of f(1085) is 0, but the 1085th "Sequence" of my new element is 1. They can't be the same.
By the way we generated our "new member" it will not be equal to f(n) for any n because the nth "digit" will be different.
What that means is that either 1) f(n) encompasses all the members of my set (which I have claimed, but I have shown that my new number is different than every f(n)) or 2) f(n) actually does NOT encompass all of my set
The second possibility is what we have to deal with here. That means that we can't generate an f(n) that covers all the values of our second set, which is exactly the point. NO SUCH f(n) can be defined.
This is a general concept of proof by contradiction. We want to prove "X is false". We do so by assuming X is true, then coming up with something like 1+1=3. If X being true leads to 1+1=3 it can't be true, and thus we have proved X is false.
"Levels of infinity" is admittedly a very weird concept, and I had a hard time believing/understanding it when I first encountered it too, but I hope this helps.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is it, that if you have studied math that people get you these books for Christmas, etc. People say, "Wow, he's into math, I'm sure he'd like that", when books like this are written for the lay person, as a fun introduction to the subject. People don't get Literature majors "Shakespeare for Dummies".
so when the power goes out, now so does the phone.
Random mutation can lead to advantageous effects, I suppose, over time, but I think altering a distribution of a known variation based on a global event could happen, but in a much longer term than we are discussing.
* Homosexuality - There are theories that nature uses homosexuality to help control population sizes. The basic theory is that when a population reaches a size that can no longer be naturally supported by the environment that homosexual tendencies become more prevelant. Of course it could just be that the percentage of gay people hasn't changed, it's just that there are more now since the overall population is growing.
What I never understand about these claims is that if homosexuality is genetic, and more likely with overpopulation, how do the individual sperm and egg know which genes to turn on? I don't think individual gene "choices" are aware of population, so while there may be a probabilistic component, how could it possibly be affected by population? The only possible way I could see that is if somehow a mother "knows" biologically how many kids she has had and that maybe the genetics of later childern could be affected. Sheer speculation on my part, but how would population as a whole be able to affect one's sexual orientation, genetically?
15 - 20 minutes of commercials per hour on US tv.
No, my bad. it is based on Bohemian Rhapsody and it is not an original work, but I can not find an author attribution anywhere. google "imperial rhapsody"
Tim Choate (Zathras) also died recently in a motorcycle accident. :-( link
Summary from the article
In "Shadows," the technology of the ancient and extinct Shadow race is being unleashed upon the galaxy by an unknown force, and Earthforce intelligence officer Diane Baker, whose brother was recently killed in a mysterious explosion, it out to find out who is behind the intergalactic conspiracy.
Sounds more like Legend of the Rangers than the Telepath War, which is what some of us figured any feature film would be about. Too bad.
(blatantly stolen - sung to Inperial Rhapsody)
LANDO: This is the good life, This is a fantasy
Working on Bespin, An escape from Reality.
LEIA: Open your eyes, Stand up to these guys and
see.
LUKE: I'm just a farmboy, I need some sympathy, Cuz who's my dad, I dunno R2-D2, R2-D2,
R2-D2, R2-D2,
R2-D2, Where'd ya go? C-3PO O O O O O OH!
I'm just a farmboy, nobody loves me.
REBELS: He's just a farmboy, with a dead family.
Spare him this life of such mundacity!
HAN: Spice'll come,
spice'll go. Jabba let me go.
JABBA: Bo shuda! (NO, we will not let you go)
HAN: Let me go!
JABBA: Bo shuda! (We will not let you go)
HAN: Let me go!
JABBA: Bo shuda! (We will not let you go)
HAN: LET ME GO!
JABBA: WILL NO LET YOU GO!
HAN: LET ME GO!
JABBA: WILL NOT LET YOU GO!
HAN: LET ME GO!
JABBA: NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!
C3PO: Oh R2-D2, R2-D2, R2-D2, Come along.
LEIA: C-3PO has a rebel put aside for meeeee, for meeeeee, for
MEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
(Stormtroopers start headbanging)
LUKE: So you say you're the dear old dad of mine?
But you cut my hand off and left me to die!
Oh Vader, can't do this to me, Vader.
I know there's some good, I know there's still some good in you.
OBIWAN: May the Force be with you.
Use the Force to see.
May the Force be with you,
May the Force be with you, alwaaaaaaaaaaaaays.
HAN: Anywhere the Force goes, doesn't really mat-ter, to meeeeeeee.
Interesting... I'm going to kind of wander off topic here a little bit but I just had a thought.
I remember learning about Joseph McCarthy in school, and about all the fear and paranoia of communism and an imminent Soviet invasion, all that stuff in the 1950's. (As an aside, if you haven't seen it, go rent The Atomic Cafe, scary stuff) But looking back now, with certain key events, it is kind of understandable.
1949 Chinese communists win civil war in China
1949 Russia gets the A bomb
1951 Russia gets the H bomb (not exactly sure about the year here)
That with the Korean war, much like the war on terror today, it must have seemed that there were communists under every rock, with the government gladly fueling the fire.
Point taken, although I tried to make the distinction by using a capital C in Communism, referring to the traditional totalitarian states that we saw during the Cold War.
True, but similarly to lynchings in the American South, anonymous violence is very hard to prosecute. And hired violence, paid for by people in power, is also hard to prosecute.
Unfettered capitalism, without any government intervention, was similar to what you saw in the US in the 19th century. It tends to result (over time) in child labor, 7 day work weeks for the lower class, and the rise of fewer and fewer companies. The tendency now is more toward that direction. Unions aren't a natural function of capitalism, they are the result of worker exploitation over a number of years. Without legal protections, unions would be broken, violently. They may seem bureaucratic now, but the "free market", assuming fair competition, is fine, but I believe it ultimately leads to monopolies if left to itself. Look at all the mergers now, just as an example.
This is simple. China has the capacity to do some real damage to us, they have a space program, probably have some ICBMs, definitely have nuclear weapsons. War with China would have terrible ramifications on US soil. Other smaller countries that we preemtively invade will only kill our troops, and we don't show coffins on tv anymore, so that's just a blurb on the news.
This is still a country with a Communist government (modified, granted, but still not democratic) who has never recognized the independence of Taiwan, who
blocks its citizens from portions of the internet at the national level, and brutally rolled over demonstrators in Tienaman (sp) square. What do you think they would go?
The worst part of the whole thing is that China is a capitalist's dream, cheap labor, who have no chance to redress grievances. No wonder we can't compete.
To those who say that economic capitalism leads to democracy, we'll just have to wait and see. I'm not holding my breath.
How smart would a 1000 year old dog be?
Nancy "Kerrigan" Zerg? Hmmm...
but I looked over the ruling, and it said basically on all counts that the case was "dismissed with prejudice". Some of the rebuttals were of the form
1) Eldred vs. Ashcroft said this, so we can't overturn that, try to go to the Supreme Court.
2) People live longer now so copyrights should last longer (for kids and such)
3) Congress carefully considers the meaning of "promotes the progress of arts and science" every time they extend this
4) Technology increases the amount of time a given work is "valuable", (tell that to the RIAA, or anyone using an old version of Windows) and thus extending the copyright gives authors even more of an incentive to create.
My question though is that since all charges are "dismissed with prejudice" is there any grounds for an appeal?
The lie-detector episode that ends with Beavis arrested as the "Hippie Ripper". "When asked how a teenage boy could have committed the brutal murders over twenty years ago, a police spokeswoman said, quote, "He's very clever.""
Electrical Power -- they could have computers only run under Windows Mills Power
Fashion -- Paris Spring Collection of Bill Gates' sweaters
Fiction -- wait, they already to that...("innovative?")
Film Making -- all digital films, but an EULA flash at the beginning of the movie
Power Tools -- wait, this is a conflict of interest, and would actually be useful
Agriculture -- They've already got lots of fertilizer, especially of the bovine variety
Pharmacuticals -- Given their track record of anti-virus protection in cyberspace, expect this to be a real winner
that has video cameras everywhere? If it is ok for the government, why not the everyday citizen?
Files you captured yourself (which I presume are legal, video tapes are, say off HBO), from those you downloaded. I realize that due to the DMCA you aren't allowed to rip DVDs because of encryption, but what about HBO feeds?
No, but three lefts do.
Interesting, but leads to a paradox I think.
. .
create a function on x where x ranges over the positive integers such that every integer maps to itself. f(n) = n.
f(1) = 1 and f(f(1)) = 1
f(2) = 2 and f(f(2)) = 2
f(3) = 3 and f(f(3)) = 3
.
.
f(x) = x and f(f(x)) = x
Do you agree that the function, when applied to the (infinitely large) range of positive integers will give an infinitely large set, and that every integer in the set will, when put through the function give itself as a result, and that every result can be mapped 1-1 to the set of positive intergers? If any of my assumptions or intentions is not correct, then my whole thought is not correct.
We can now list the numbers resulting from the application of the function to the positive integers, pad the results on the left with zeros to make all the entries in the list the same length, and apply Cantor's diagonal argument.
This will result in a number, and because the function is f(number) = number, the entry that maps to the number found in the diagonalization must be arrived at when run through the f(x) = x function.
Ok, there are two things here. First, you can not "pad to the left" to make all the numbers of equal length. For any finite set of numbers, it can be done, because there is a maximum number of digits. If you pad with an INFINITE number of zeros on each, I suppose they would be the same length, but then you are dealing with numbers with an infinite number of digits. Natural numbers never have an "infinite" number of digits (for example the number 111...... forever is NOT a natural number). Natural numbers have can be arbitrarily large, but finite. If you had an infinite number of zeros before every number, your new number (assuming you take "digit 1" of 000.........1, and "digit 2" of 000........2, etc, something other than zero for each digit would give you an infinite sequence of digits, but not a natural number.
In fact, it IS the case that the set of infinite sequences of digits is uncountable, but the crux of the matter here I think is understanding the difference between "infinite" and "finite, but arbitrarily large".
Hope this helps.
Basically this entire thing comes down to a proof by contradiction. The general logic in that claim goes something like this
1) Let's assume f(n) for all 1,2,3... infinity contains all the possible values for my set
2) I can show that this is not true, by coming up with a member of the set which is not f(n) for any n.
You may say "bullshit", it's one of the f(n)'s.
Then I'll say "ok, which one is it"
Then you'll say, f(1085), for example.
Then I'll say, no it's not, because the 1085th "sequence" (or digit or however this is done) of f(1085) is 0, but the 1085th "Sequence" of my new element is 1. They can't be the same.
By the way we generated our "new member" it will not be equal to f(n) for any n because the nth "digit" will be different.
What that means is that either
1) f(n) encompasses all the members of my set (which I have claimed, but I have shown that my new number is different than every f(n))
or 2) f(n) actually does NOT encompass all of my set
The second possibility is what we have to deal with here. That means that we can't generate an f(n) that covers all the values of our second set, which is exactly the point. NO SUCH f(n) can be defined.
This is a general concept of proof by contradiction. We want to prove "X is false". We do so by assuming X is true, then coming up with something like 1+1=3. If X being true leads to 1+1=3 it can't be true, and thus we have proved X is false.
"Levels of infinity" is admittedly a very weird concept, and I had a hard time believing/understanding it when I first encountered it too, but I hope this helps.