Some companies do not put enough resources into eliminating all piracy of their software. Furthermore, some of these companies neglect to put enough resources as a goal. Do these companies pirate their own copyright work by making them available?
If a prosecutor wrongfully prosecutes another prosecutor to death, should the prosecutor face the death penalty? Note that the prosecutor who has been executed need not be the prosecutor of the original case.
Godel proved that Peano arithmetic is incomplete. There are some axiomatic systems that are both consistent and complete. Examples of such systems include plane Euclidean geometry and Presburger arithmetic.
Can you please elaborate on your criticism? Are you saying that anything outside the observable universe must be more distant from us than anything that is inside the observable universe? Are you saying that light is necessary for causation? Again, please elaborate.
Maybe you should think a little harder about how humans work.
Is the court system a tool in the service of mankind or vice-versa? Anything the court wants the court gets? What if the court wants to publish every hot chat you ever had with who you thought was a woman but was actually a 9 year old boy? It's the court, we have to give it what it wants, sorry.
Moreover, does the "internet" want anything at all? Courts have authoritative persons speaking for them and have volition. Can the same be said of the "internet"? Does the "internet" want anything or do the users of the Internet want those things?
If there is a trolley racing toward five people who are tied to a rail and you have a lever that will divert the trolley to another track that only has one person tied to a rail, would you pull the lever? Similarly, if an individual's life threatens that of many others, do we value that individual's life above those of others?
No piece of steel has been perfectly modeled by mathematics. Furthermore, no physical entity has been perfectly modeled by mathematics. However, software can always be perfectly modeled by mathematics.
Take the reminder of 5700000 after division by 66 to get 42. That's the answer to everything. But that is not all. The remainder of 66 divided by 42 is 24, the opposite answer to everything. Then 42 modulo 24 is 18. Finally, 24 modulo 18 is 6. This means that the greatest common divisor of 5700000 and 66 is 6. We can simply concatenate the last two numbers to get 666, the number of the beast. There are many more connections to the number of the beast that does not fit in this post.
The grandparent was directing his comment "at believers who waste their energy over this argument." Don't try to confuse the issue by bringing all Christians into this.
Any logical contradiction in the set of axioms will result in a rather dull result. This result is that every statement in the language of the axioms is both true and false.
Consider Conway's Game of Life. If you were to run a simulation and suddenly terminate the program, does that prevent another computer from continuing from the exact state of the Game right before you terminated the program? Physical existence might be as ephemeral as an abstract simulation such as the Game of Life relative to a simulator. Changing one instance of a Game will not change the sequence of states that must occur given an initial condition.
You do not read blogs because you claim that "they are rife with poorly researched theses" and yet you did not do the necessary research of reading the blog posting to justify adequate research in your own posting.
All proofs will reduce to valid logical combinations of axioms. One might name large blocks of the proof a lemma or reference other proven theorems; but the fact remains that all proofs must be reducible to the axioms. Proofs are finite and therefore a reduction can be verified, hence it is not enough for the proof to merely convince the reader. I believe the "missing steps" you mention have already been proven or else the theorem using these missing steps has not been proven yet. Mathematics is rigorous and your assertion contradicts that rigor.
> Nothing has changed in 2000 years about how much character it takes to avoid criminality. So if there's more crime, there's less instilling or more unbridled greed.
Things have changed in the last 2000 years about how much character it takes to avoid criminality. The state of being a criminal is defined solely by law. In the last 2000 years, laws have become increasingly broad. It takes an increasingly restricted character to abide by the laws of the land, where ever you are.
Just don't attribute crime as a fault of character. It is not. Crime is always a result of law.
Re:And sometimes...those myths are true...
on
Why Myths Persist
·
· Score: 1
In http://dictionary.com/ myth is defined as "an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution." Myths can not be true.
The Universe can not be a hypersphere. The reason for this is that space is Euclidean. If two parallel lines were to extend outwards, they will never intersect. Now, imagine a sphere with any two lines on it. Either the two lines will intersect at two points, or they coincide and intersect at an infinite number of points. It is impossible to have parallel lines on a 2-dimensional surface of a sphere. The same argument goes for a 3-dimensional boundary of a hypersphere. Two planes will necessarily intersect. If two lines on each plane were parallel, they two will intersect. One possible surface that is Euclidean on the surface is a torus. If two parallel lines were drawn on the surface, they will never intersect. A hypertorus will have a similar property.
Slashdot Mirror
If it becomes a crime to have radio frequency jamming equipment then only criminals will have radio frequency jamming equipment.
Some companies do not put enough resources into eliminating all piracy of their software. Furthermore, some of these companies neglect to put enough resources as a goal. Do these companies pirate their own copyright work by making them available?
If a prosecutor wrongfully prosecutes another prosecutor to death, should the prosecutor face the death penalty? Note that the prosecutor who has been executed need not be the prosecutor of the original case.
Godel proved that Peano arithmetic is incomplete. There are some axiomatic systems that are both consistent and complete. Examples of such systems include plane Euclidean geometry and Presburger arithmetic.
Here are more examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_theory
Can you please elaborate on your criticism? Are you saying that anything outside the observable universe must be more distant from us than anything that is inside the observable universe? Are you saying that light is necessary for causation? Again, please elaborate.
Maybe you should think a little harder about how humans work.
Is the court system a tool in the service of mankind or vice-versa? Anything the court wants the court gets? What if the court wants to publish every hot chat you ever had with who you thought was a woman but was actually a 9 year old boy? It's the court, we have to give it what it wants, sorry.
Moreover, does the "internet" want anything at all? Courts have authoritative persons speaking for them and have volition. Can the same be said of the "internet"? Does the "internet" want anything or do the users of the Internet want those things?
If there is a trolley racing toward five people who are tied to a rail and you have a lever that will divert the trolley to another track that only has one person tied to a rail, would you pull the lever? Similarly, if an individual's life threatens that of many others, do we value that individual's life above those of others?
Justice cannot be for pro for one group at the expense of another.
I would assume that you believe that justice cannot be pro for people who do not murder at the expense of those who do murder.
There is nothing wrong with power sellers selling their power.
No piece of steel has been perfectly modeled by mathematics. Furthermore, no physical entity has been perfectly modeled by mathematics. However, software can always be perfectly modeled by mathematics.
I should qualify that by saying that all terminating programs that run on a Turing machine will only use a finite length of tape.
No program is infinite in length. No terminating program requires an infinite amount of memory.
All programs that run on a Turing machine will only use a finite length of tape.
Take the reminder of 5700000 after division by 66 to get 42. That's the answer to everything. But that is not all. The remainder of 66 divided by 42 is 24, the opposite answer to everything. Then 42 modulo 24 is 18. Finally, 24 modulo 18 is 6. This means that the greatest common divisor of 5700000 and 66 is 6. We can simply concatenate the last two numbers to get 666, the number of the beast. There are many more connections to the number of the beast that does not fit in this post.
The grandparent was directing his comment "at believers who waste their energy over this argument." Don't try to confuse the issue by bringing all Christians into this.
Any logical contradiction in the set of axioms will result in a rather dull result. This result is that every statement in the language of the axioms is both true and false.
Consider Conway's Game of Life. If you were to run a simulation and suddenly terminate the program, does that prevent another computer from continuing from the exact state of the Game right before you terminated the program? Physical existence might be as ephemeral as an abstract simulation such as the Game of Life relative to a simulator. Changing one instance of a Game will not change the sequence of states that must occur given an initial condition.
You do not read blogs because you claim that "they are rife with poorly researched theses" and yet you did not do the necessary research of reading the blog posting to justify adequate research in your own posting.
Maybe the FPU shares circuitry with the integer instruction circuitry.
All proofs will reduce to valid logical combinations of axioms. One might name large blocks of the proof a lemma or reference other proven theorems; but the fact remains that all proofs must be reducible to the axioms. Proofs are finite and therefore a reduction can be verified, hence it is not enough for the proof to merely convince the reader. I believe the "missing steps" you mention have already been proven or else the theorem using these missing steps has not been proven yet. Mathematics is rigorous and your assertion contradicts that rigor.
> Nothing has changed in 2000 years about how much character it takes to avoid criminality. So if there's more crime, there's less instilling or more unbridled greed.
Things have changed in the last 2000 years about how much character it takes to avoid criminality. The state of being a criminal is defined solely by law. In the last 2000 years, laws have become increasingly broad. It takes an increasingly restricted character to abide by the laws of the land, where ever you are.
Just don't attribute crime as a fault of character. It is not. Crime is always a result of law.
In http://dictionary.com/ myth is defined as "an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution." Myths can not be true.
The Universe can not be a hypersphere. The reason for this is that space is Euclidean. If two parallel lines were to extend outwards, they will never intersect. Now, imagine a sphere with any two lines on it. Either the two lines will intersect at two points, or they coincide and intersect at an infinite number of points. It is impossible to have parallel lines on a 2-dimensional surface of a sphere. The same argument goes for a 3-dimensional boundary of a hypersphere. Two planes will necessarily intersect. If two lines on each plane were parallel, they two will intersect.
One possible surface that is Euclidean on the surface is a torus. If two parallel lines were drawn on the surface, they will never intersect. A hypertorus will have a similar property.
Quantum computers are not useful for some NP-complete problems.
Maybe that "half" corresponds to the boys exclusively.