All you've shown is that people co-opt words for their own purposes. If you trace the source of conservatism, though, you'll find at its root individual rights.
No, that's "Liberalism" that has its roots in individual rights. Of course, what an American describing themself as "liberal" means is generally "leftist" to varying degrees. Conservatism just means fearful of change and what they're afraid of constantly changes. Now the really bizarre thing is that the antique, outdated idea you're still trying to claim "conservative" applies to is actually "Liberalism".
Of course, conservatives are no longer trying to conserve Liberalism. Now all they care about is fascism. Big police state government for the benefit of big business at the expense of the people and religious extremism. So they're not even "conserving" anything at this point. They are radical extremists attempting to completely rewrite America by destroying everything that made it great.
So, while the word conservative is a complete oxymoron given their radical hatred of America, you should really give up on trying to force it to mean anything related to Liberalism. That meaning is dead and gone, just like liberal which it replaced for a while.
It's root, though, doesn't have anything to do with 'individual rights" except that it was absolutely opposed to them from the start. It meant anti-Liberal where Liberal at that point meant pro individual liberty. Conservatives were the ones who hated freedom and were supporters of the absolute rule of the aristocracy/royalty/church. Conservatives being pro anything at all positive came much later and was a brief blip before it was subverted once again back to its actual meaning.
So conservative now means what it always did except for the very brief time it was coopted to mean what liberal once meant. Of course, the really sad and pathetic thing is that there is no longer a word in modern American English to describe the basis of our country which was, of course, Liberalism.
The fact that One side says McCain (again what the heck is up with the extra 'e' you keep putting on his name?) is Bush III, the says he is not. That is called an argument.
It's not a rational argument. I could say that you're currently wearing a clown suit and a gas mask, you could deny it (assuming, of course, that you aren't). You could call it an argument, but it's just me repeating nonsense. It's not a valid rational argument. Same situation with McCain supporters. They just repeat meaningless nonsense and have no rational basis for their views. He's not a "maverick", he's a tool who has sold out America completely.
If you want to change their mind about anything substantial, you have to understand what makes them tick. Its been my observation that many people who don't live in the united states, don't understand what makes a lot of US citizens tick. Then they judge them by their own standards.
However, "what makes a lot of US citizens tick" is cowardice, and a militant death grip on ignorance. That quite neatly and accurately explains how we got to our current situation and it is the defining characteristic of the American people in this day and age. You're not going to be able to convince people who have a religious belief in delusions that they are wrong. They'll only use such an attempt as yet another example of how the evil {Democrats|Liberals|Atheists|Terrorists|$DEMON_OF_THE_DAY} are attacking them and America, while the fact is that they are the greatest threat America has ever faced.
Now, the Republicans have internalized this fact and have used it to push fascism which they've eagerly supported since prior to WW2. The democrats haven't quite gotten this which is why they have been such complete crap at the game.
He was also a victim to many nasty tricks at the hands of Bush during the 2000 primary. This is why tying him to Bush is part of the Obama strategy, because there is doubt in many peoples mind that they would pursue a similar strategy.
No, that's not why "it's part of Obama's campaign strategy". The fact that McCane bent over and spent the next 8 years licking Bush's boots and agreeing with him on almost everything including torture (after a half ass and deeply cowardly act of being against it for a minute) is how everybody with any sense at all *knows* that MCCane will just be the next Bush who was just the next Reagan. Same shitty policies, same shitty results. Some people never learn though.
In short its a thousand times more complex then what you and many others think. You'd sort of have to live here to understand the different points of view and why they think the way they do.
No, it's really not at all more complex. People make up all sorts of delusional nonsense so they can tell themselves they aren't being stupid. It just means they're good at fooling themselves, not that they aren't being stupid.
There is no legitimate doubt that a McCane administration would be merely a continuation of failed policies. That's what people who vote along party lines cause to be fact. There is no reasonable doubt. Just look at who he picked for his running mate. A vacuous idiot who is the governor of Alaska, the queen of the welfare states, and a greedy little piggy who begged for the bridge to nowhere and then bald facedly lied about a matter of the public record. That demonstrates complete contempt for the American citizens. Yeah, there's really some doubt for a sane person there.
John McCain can't type because his arms were repeatedly broken by the Vietnamese while he was a POW. Why do you insult disabled veterans?
Because he's a fucking scumbag liar who has completely pissed away any integrity that he might once have had by being an active supporter of torturing innocent people and made up bullshit wars?
Are you really that fucking stupid that you needed that pointed out to you?
Joining the military doesn't make one a "good guy" especially when we have no credible military threats (and haven't for decades) and even more so when you're as pathetic at it as McCain was.
No one is above the law. No one is beneath it, either, not even politicians.
Actually, the politicos in Washington have officially put themselves above the law and all of us beneath it. That's what the Patriot act, and the criminal spying they just gave AT&T a get out of jail free card are all about.
So while what you say *should* be true, it obviously isn't. Given the well established fact that it isn't even close to the truth, the only rational view for a *citizen*, as opposed to a subject is that members of the government are completely outside the protection of the law and nothing done to them is in any way wrong.
They consider the law to be something to be twisted in order to use it against decent ethical citizens, which is treasonous and quite clearly demonstrates their position.
The only thing that is bizarre in this whole affair is you and your position.
Why do you feel that elected officials in Washington should be above the law? Why do you think that a citizen acting in defense of his country against criminal traitors is the bad guy?
In short, what is wrong with you that you want to be a salve and force everyone else down that path?
Like I said, your assertion is what *should* be true. It is not at all true, so you need to deal with that reality, rather than pretend that your delusional statement is actually in any way related to reality.
Great attitude... if you want to ensure no honorable person runs for office.
I don't know where the hell you're posting from, but in America, this is already the situation and has been for quite some time. We're discussing ways to address this issue. You're spouting delusional nonsense.
The federal government has already proven absolutely and beyond the possibility of a doubt that they can not be trusted. Pretending that holding them accountable for their willfully chosen actions will cause what already is to suddenly happen shows a deep misunderstanding on your part of cause and affect at the very least.
Your assertion requires the presupposition that a unborn child is not a human.
No, dipshit, your assertion that it is a full blown human being deserving of more rights than an actual human being is what requires a presupposition. Women are not your slaves. You have no right to force them to ruin their lives bearing children they can't afford to make you happy. Go live in a totalitarian society if you want to, don't try to fuck up this one worse than you already have.
No, that's propaganda. If you redefine terms to suit your political agenda, it doesn't make your opposition liars.
Glad you realize that. Now quit redefining terms to suit your entirely fucking evil political agenda of demanding women be your slaves. It's disgusting and does nothing to help anybody and only harms all involved. Grow up and realize you do not get to decide when and if people you don't even know have children.
No, pro-lifers want neither to make pregnancy banned nor compulsory. That choice is left to the individual. One method of implementing that choice, being abortion, is the target of their campaign.
Yes, they do want to make continued pregnancy against the will of the only person with any right to decide compulsory. That's what banning abortion is for and that's all that it can possibly do.
It is just as I suspected, you aren't interested in rational debate. Be my guest, post last. There is no need for me to reply again.
Actually, I am, but you are incapable of dealing rationally with this issue. You feel that you have the right to force a woman to bear a child she doesn't want and can't afford solely because you feel she should have to. The fact that you think you have any place being involved in another person's private life to such an overwhelmingly invasive degree demonstrates absolutely, your inability to deal rationally with this issue. Sane people don't think they magically get to control extremely personal decisions of people they don't even know. You continually claim that taking away her choice in the matter isn't anti-choice, that's insane and disgustingly dishonest. But again, that's what you get when you try and shove religious beliefs into the laws of an explicitly non-religious system of government. This kind of disgustingly evil crap is why religious delusion was explicitly banned from being codified into law in this country.
Ok, so we'll call pro-life anti-choice and pro-choice baby-killers.
No, that's stupid. pro-life is a lie, they're pro fetus rights over human rights and anti-choice. Those are facts. Nobody is talking about killing babies and you look like a fool when you pretend that's even relevant.
Anti-abortion is not anti-choice, it is not against the act of making a choice itself, it is against that one particular act of having an abortion.
Sure it's against allowing people to make a choice about what goes on inside their own bodies.
I've never seen any pro-life material that claims we should all live our lives completely under compulsion because having a choice is bad. It isn't about choice, it's about abortion.
Semantics and meaningless. They want to restrict people's *choices* about what goes on inside their own bodies and it's hard to imagine a more invasive power to give to big government at the expense of individual liberty.
People who want abortions do want an additional choice, so pro-choice is a reasonable label, but anti-choice is not accurate at all.
No, there is no additional choice, that's again a deeply dishonest way to attempt to mislead. They do not want religious loons restricting their choices. Nothing gives those loons the right to crawl up inside another person's uterus. If they want to live in a theocracy, they can move to Iran. That's the system they think they want, let them go find out what sane people have known for centuries.
Since in this thread nobody up till now had mentioned anything about religion, it's hard to see what point you're making here. Oh I see, it's flamebait. I guess it is smart of you to try and distract from the lack of substance in your argument, kudos.
Nor flamebait, fact. The anti-choice movement is a religious one. Yes, there are some deluded fools who aren't religious who also want extremist invasive government policies too, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a religious movement.
Interesting. I wasn't familiar with those areas of research. They're obviously not mainstream, but that doesn't have the same negative connotation as it does in physics. Those aren't in any way the mathematical equivalent of perpetual motion or anything of the sort.
I wouldn't want to play around in such a limited, restricted sandbox, because the results available outside it are so neat and powerful, but it's perfectly valid mathematics so knock yourself out and have fun with it;-)
Actually I do still have a point which remains: that pro-life doesn't mean anti-choice as claimed, women still have choice even if they don't have access to abortion. That is not an anti-abortion argument, it's a "anti-incorrect labelling of people who disagree" argument.
Nonsense. They are anti-choice. They do not want to allow women to make *their own* choices about what goes on inside their own bodies. They're willing to provide a subset of choices which they will permit those poor dumb girls who are too stupid to know what the correct choices they may make are, which they can choose from, but that's not at all the same thing. It's deeply dishonest of you to claim that they are the same thing. The label is precise and absolutely correct. Your religious delusions have no bearing on that.
For someone who thinks that human history is the story of negating causality rather than discovering and implementing it, you might consider learning to think yourself. Perhaps learning reading comprehension while you're at it.
Cold weather is a cause. Dying of exposure is an undesired natural effect. Warm clothing and shelter is a human invention to mitigate or eliminate that undesirable natural effect. Obviously your reading comprehension skills are the problem, not mine.
In both cases, the issue is not inferiority, the issue is wrongness.
A militant death grip on ignorance and gross wrongness makes a person inferior to one who isn't afraid to think and learn. It's not being wrong that is the problem, it's the repeated pushing for such wrongness in the face of all the evidence in the interest of duping people into fucking themselves and their future for your short term gain, and the cowardly refusal to *admit* you're wrong and move on.
Anyone who claims the unrestricted right to abortion is claiming that you have a right to engage in activity that you know is likely to result in pregnancy and still have an abortion, negating the natural consequences of that activity.
Unless you live naked in a cave eating raw whatever you can pick up off of the ground, you have no point at all.
All of human history is the story of us finding ways to negate the natural consequences of actions. Please pull your head out of your ass and learn to think.
I think the iPhone/AT&T locking is terrible. However, how does releasing a phone that is only licensed to work with a single cell carrier who is subsidizing part of the cost have to do with being a monopoly?
Well, they're not subsidizing the cost. They are offering kickbacks to Apple for people who sign up for AT&T. That's a huge difference. I never signed up for AT&T, so apple didn't receive one penny from AT&T from my company's purchase of my iPhone.
That doesn't do anything to answer your question, but it does do something to make sure you're even asking the right question.
Unfortunately, your "accurate generalization" was dead wrong. I am not a big-government fascist s***bag. I am a libertarian, and as such I see elements of socialism in both Communism and Fascism - indeed, in any group, including those of the left or right wing who seek increased government control "for the good of all".
Oh, ok, I get it.
You're a fucking idiot.
You use a term to mean something completely different than what it actually means, it just so happens to be a redefinition pushed by the fascist shitbags in this country for the purpose of marginalizing the specific ideology that you claim to be a supporter of, and then whine that you get pegged as a supporter of what you actually are working to support.
Right, my bad. No, fuck that. Your bad..
Socialism is Communism light. To get from Socialism to Fascism you have to skip completely over Liberalism (Classical Liberalism, not what idiot Americans allowed the founding philosophy of their nation to be redefined as. It's pretty much what you think you believe in ) to the complete polar opposite. Now for you to claim that they're the same, you have to be an extremely stupid piece of shit, and that's a fact.
Increased government control for the good of all is the cry of the Left and the Right. It's what people like myself are against. You are for it, but you're too fucking stupid and ignorant to realize it as evidenced by that delusional shit you spouted. You're just helping try and redirect the blame by your spouting of fascist propaganda. And again, you're too fucking stupid to notice it.
. My grandfather was not in any war, but my father fought communists in Vietnam and my great-uncle fought fascists in WW2.
Hot tip idiot. Your father was not fighting communists in Vietnam. He was fighting for fascists. Pull your head out of your ass and think, nay, learn. My father and step father were in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and various other places which it was illegal for them to be in. Unlike you and presumably your father, they were young and dumb, but they actually managed to pull their heads out of their asses and learn.
Did you know that Ho Chi Minh was probably the biggest booster of America that ever lived? He loved the hell out of every good thing we ever stood for. He wrote letters to our Presidents begging us to help them throw off oppression and help them become like us. This is the place where if you were not a complete douche, you'd actually look that up. I doubt you will. (That doubt is my contempt for shitbags like you.) Yet, arguing with France over how liberty is a good thing didn't fit with our weapon's industry's goals so we told him to fuck off and be a good slave (amusingly enough, that was the same take Jesus had in the Bible on slavery). Now after fighting and fighting for a free society (you know, that thing you'll lyingly claim you believe in as a libertarian. Not that libertarians are liars, but you are) for years and begging for help from us and being pissed on repeatedly he turned to the USSR. Not because he liked them, not because he liked communism (he hated it far worse than you), but because it was that or live as a slave....of the fucking French. So then, as soon as that happened, all of a sudden, from out of nowhere, we magically had enough resources to stage a false flag attack on our own fucking ships to sell the war to the public on the basis of the domino theory with a fucking domino *we* set up.
So no, your god damned father did not ever in his fucking life fight communists. He fought for fascists.
I find your claim interesting that "'You deserve this despite your ability to pay' sounds socialist" breaks the bounds of common decency but "You are a fascist s***bag" does not. Good luck with that.
Well, again, it's your failure to know what the fuck you're talking about that makes it true. If I said that that bum I passed on the corner deserves your wallet, then that would be socialist. If the board and executives of a bunch of ba
For the bijection to work, there must be a prime for every natural.
*and* a natural for every prime;-) That's essentially all that "bijection" means. It's exactly the same idea as having 2 boxes with 5 things in them. Grab one out of one box and one out of the other. When both boxes are empty, if there is the same (finite) number of things in the boxes to start out with, then each thing from box one will be paired with one thing from box 2 and each thing in box 2 will have something from box one paired with it. You'll have no single items left over in either box and you'll have no triples where 2 things in one box are "paired" with one thing from the other. So for finite cases, this pulling things from boxes and laying them out side by side works. It might take a while, but when you empty both boxes, then you will know that you're done, that you didn't miss any and you can look and see if you have any extras.
You can't do this for boxes with an infinite amount of things for obvious reasons, so the idea is to come up with a way of extending the ideas to infinite sets. A bijection is the natural obvious way to do this.
So you define two sets to have equal cardinality iff there exists a bijection between the 2 sets.
Now, this would be the place where you'd want to object to the definition itself if you're so inclined. I can't think of anything that does a better job of extrapolating from the finite case, but maybe you can. Once you agree that the definition is "good", then all else follows directly and absolutely.
At that point, to prove that any 2 infinite sets have the same cardinality, all you have to do is come up with a bijection between the 2 sets. Coming up with a function between the 2 sets that isn't a bijection does nothing for you, since out of the infinite number of possible functions from one set to the other, there only need to be one bijection.
On the other hand, to show that 2 infinite sets do not have the same cardinality, it's necessary to prove that it is impossible to ever construct any function from one to the other that's a bijection. Typically, this is going to be more difficult.
So, for the bijection to "work" it doesn't have to do anything at all except be a bijection. Now once you've defined a function, you still have to prove that it actually is a bijection before you can declare the 2 sets to have the same cardinality.
So in the interest of picking a case where it's easy to explicitly write down a bijection, lets demonstrate that the natural numbers and the even natural numbers have the same cardinality. This case should contain all the "problems" you have with the idea. I mean "obviously" there are only half as many even numbers are there are numbers, right?
So let N be the set of natural numbers, and let N2 be the set of even natural numbers. Define a function f from N to N2 as follows: f(n)=2n It's a well defined function, every element of N is mapped by the function, and for any natural number n, 2n is obviously even. Now my claim is that this is a bijection. Proving this involves 2 steps, proving it's one to one, and proving that it's onto.
one to one: let x and y be in N such that f(x)=f(y). If it's a one to one function, then x has to be equal to y. This is just the definition of a one to one function. so, f(x)=f(y) gives us 2x=2y by the specific definition of the function in question. divide both sides by 2, and you have x=y. Therefore this function is one to one.
onto: let a be in the set N2. To prove onto, we need to show that there exists something in N which is mapped to a. Since a is in N2, we know it's even. That's because everything in N2 is. This means that a/2 is an integer by the definition of an even number. It's a positive integer because everything we're looking at is positive. So a/2 is in N and f(a/2)=a So the function is onto.
So it is a bijection which proves that the cardinality of the natural numbers is the same as only the even nat
Coming from someone who, without knowing who I am or how I came to my conclusions, decided I was a "big government ninny state right wing extremist fascist ****bag", that's rich!
Typical. You made a blatantly false statement which could only have been done out of malicious intent or gross ignorance making a massive untrue generalization. I made an accurate generalization in the same vein and you have nothing to respond with but whining.
In case you hadn't noticed, that's also when I ceased to believe that you were someone who could be reasoned with, hence my decision to not even bother defending or explaining my viewpoint to you.
Your viewpoint is entirely indefensible. It's based on your ignorance of the meanings of the terms you're misusing, so there's no point in you trying ot defend it. You're wrong as I clearly pointed out. The fact that you can't take what you're trying to dish out is a character flaw.
I wasn't the one to break the rules of common decency.
Sure you did. You tried to declare anyone who made a statement to be a socialist. Trying to ignore the existence of fascists and the other right wing shitbags and pretend that that whole side of the spectrum doesn't even exist is completely disgusting. My grandfather fought against the monsters you are actively trying to cover for. That is far outside the bounds of decency. Lie all you like. I'll be happy to continue demonstrating your deep dishonesty. It's not difficult, you're that deeply ignorant.
That's not an assumption, it's a fact. Perhaps you're more interested in physics than mathematics?
It assumes that simultaneously there are an infinite number of naturals and an infinite number of primes available. That's a valid assumption.
No, again, those are not assumptions. Those are very well established facts which arise inevitably as soon as you get anything as complicated as counting.
But, it isn't one I wish to make.
Well, like I said, it's not an assumption. If you're interested in some sort of a system in which infinities can not arise, well then you will not have the natural numbers, the integers, and absolutely you will not have the real numbers since that's a strictly larger infinite set than the others. You might do a search on finite groups or finite fields. They start with finite sets, have some neat properties, and are quite useful. I don't think it's really what you're looking for, but you don't even know what that is so best of luck.
You obviously don't know as much as you claim to know. Read and be enlightened:
I am quite familiar with the PMI, thanks. Hopefully uncmathguy cleared up your error to your satisfaction.
Yes, and it is this 'definition' which is flawed and arbitrary.
It's not at all arbitrary. It's very well thought out and exactly captures the idea of equality of size for finite sets. If it has any flaws, you have yet to demonstrate a single one.
It fails to account for the rates at which things grow to infinity (which is precisely the thing I want to capture with some augmented aleph number--call it a 'bet' number if you like).
It doesn't "fail to account" for it. That entire concept is completely irrelevant to the topic. Nothing is growing or changing. The only thing under discussion when talking about whether 2 sets have equal cardinality are the 2 sets themselves. Two fixed and unchanging sets. Nothing is growing, nothing is changing, and absolutely nothing is in any way shape or form growing to infinity.
You seem to be talking about limits, but those don't even exist in this context. Limits require more structure than just sets. Heck, "growing" requires more information than exists in the concept of sets. {1,5,7} is *exactly* the same set as {7,1,5}. They look different to you, because the elements of the set are in a different order, but the concept of order doesn't even apply to sets. That requires a different concept called ( conveniently enough ) an "ordered set" which is a set *and* an order relation defined on that set.. Further, you can't even say that 5 is 4 more than 1 in this situation since the concept of distance (or arithmetic or anything of the sort ) doesn't exist here. Doing that would require at least a metric space. Cardinality applies to plain ordinary sets with no additional structure imposed upon them, so most of the words you're using *can't* be applied in general.
There already are beth numbers, but they don't do what you want either. Most likely that is because you don't even understand what it is that you're objecting to. You need to be able to clearly and unambiguously state what you mean. You haven't done that yet. You just keep complaining about how some things work. You need to understand what we're talking about before you're going to be able to actually understand if there even is any issue or path forward to anything interesting though.
Your complaint about my critique of your attempt at a proof by induction demonstrates a deep flaw in your understanding of the topic under discussion.
* From your response to uncmathguy;
But, infinity is merely a concept. You can ascribe it to both of these if you wish, but I simply think that loses some information about the relation.
And again, you fail to mention one single scrap of information that could possibly be "lost". It's an absolute fact that you're dead wrong on that. Maybe what you want to say is that there is a different relationship that you are interested in which is not illuminated by this, but that is a completely different thing. If you want to get anywhere in mathematics or any other area based on rational thought, you are going to have to learn how to speak precisely about whatever it is that you think you're talking about.
Maybe another concept is called for?
To do what? The problem is that you haven't come up with a single flaw, a single missing piece of information, or anything in any way needing another concept. If you really think you have something interesting to say, maybe you should try really, really hard to actually say it without misusing terms you don't understand and without glancing at a link and suggesting I be enlightened by it when you don't even understand what it says?
But I thought it was made back in the 60/70s to wipe out gay and black people! You mean it wasn't the government or the Jews that did it?/loony
What are you talking about?!?!
You are aware that both Jews and the government existed 100 years ago, right? So there's really no problem with that theory still....Well...ok...there's no *new* problem with that "theory" just because it's pushed back a few decades;-)
In short a cute gay guy might have a higher chance of having children than I do:).
I was in high school when I figured out that gay haters are fucking morons. Let's see, they're (massively generalizing) largely in good shape, snazzy dressers and know how to talk to girls about all that emotional crap.....And I want them for competition why exactly?
All I've been saying about Godel's theorem is that it doesn't have anything to do with the question of whether this wiki's goal makes sense.
True. Several people have been arguing that it did, but they're all wrong because they've either completely misunderstood Gödel's theorems or misunderstood the goal of this project.
I assert merely that if a piece of mathematical knowledge is truly known, then it has a proof, and that if it has a real proof then that proof can be checked by a machine.
Yes, absolutely. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I must have implicitly added more to what you were saying about that bit than you actually were.
Since humans are machines, this would seem to be true in a very obvious way.
Makes sense, although just because we can do something doesn't necessarily mean that the engineering problem of building a machine to do the same thing is surmountable. Eventually, I'd like to think that it will be, but who knows. Given the limits of this project, it would seem reasonable that it's doable, although I don't really know enough about formal verification and the like to say.
Your whole idea seems to hinge on "within arithmetic". Well I don't care what system you work in. Either you have a proof of truth/falseness or the fact is not known. Maybe that proof involves a proof of undecidability within a certain system, but it doesn't matter.
Thank you for the compliment, but it's not my idea. The person you're looking for is Kurt Gödel. If you're going to attempt to rationally discuss his results you might consider taking a few minutes to actually understand the statement of them. "within arithmetic" is absolutely essential...or within whatever system you're dealing with. The Goldbach conjecture is stated within arithmetic, so it's the only system that matters for this. The fact that it's possible to prove things about arithmetic from the outside is perfectly in line with his theorems. There is no problem with this.
Slashdot Mirror
All you've shown is that people co-opt words for their own purposes. If you trace the source of conservatism, though, you'll find at its root individual rights.
No, that's "Liberalism" that has its roots in individual rights. Of course, what an American describing themself as "liberal" means is generally "leftist" to varying degrees. Conservatism just means fearful of change and what they're afraid of constantly changes. Now the really bizarre thing is that the antique, outdated idea you're still trying to claim "conservative" applies to is actually "Liberalism".
Of course, conservatives are no longer trying to conserve Liberalism. Now all they care about is fascism. Big police state government for the benefit of big business at the expense of the people and religious extremism. So they're not even "conserving" anything at this point. They are radical extremists attempting to completely rewrite America by destroying everything that made it great.
So, while the word conservative is a complete oxymoron given their radical hatred of America, you should really give up on trying to force it to mean anything related to Liberalism. That meaning is dead and gone, just like liberal which it replaced for a while.
It's root, though, doesn't have anything to do with 'individual rights" except that it was absolutely opposed to them from the start. It meant anti-Liberal where Liberal at that point meant pro individual liberty. Conservatives were the ones who hated freedom and were supporters of the absolute rule of the aristocracy/royalty/church.
Conservatives being pro anything at all positive came much later and was a brief blip before it was subverted once again back to its actual meaning.
So conservative now means what it always did except for the very brief time it was coopted to mean what liberal once meant. Of course, the really sad and pathetic thing is that there is no longer a word in modern American English to describe the basis of our country which was, of course, Liberalism.
The fact that One side says McCain (again what the heck is up with the extra 'e' you keep putting on his name?) is Bush III, the says he is not. That is called an argument.
It's not a rational argument. I could say that you're currently wearing a clown suit and a gas mask, you could deny it (assuming, of course, that you aren't). You could call it an argument, but it's just me repeating nonsense. It's not a valid rational argument. Same situation with McCain supporters. They just repeat meaningless nonsense and have no rational basis for their views. He's not a "maverick", he's a tool who has sold out America completely.
If you want to change their mind about anything substantial, you have to understand what makes them tick. Its been my observation that many people who don't live in the united states, don't understand what makes a lot of US citizens tick. Then they judge them by their own standards.
However, "what makes a lot of US citizens tick" is cowardice, and a militant death grip on ignorance. That quite neatly and accurately explains how we got to our current situation and it is the defining characteristic of the American people in this day and age. You're not going to be able to convince people who have a religious belief in delusions that they are wrong. They'll only use such an attempt as yet another example of how the evil {Democrats|Liberals|Atheists|Terrorists|$DEMON_OF_THE_DAY} are attacking them and America, while the fact is that they are the greatest threat America has ever faced.
Now, the Republicans have internalized this fact and have used it to push fascism which they've eagerly supported since prior to WW2. The democrats haven't quite gotten this which is why they have been such complete crap at the game.
He was also a victim to many nasty tricks at the hands of Bush during the 2000 primary. This is why tying him to Bush is part of the Obama strategy, because there is doubt in many peoples mind that they would pursue a similar strategy.
No, that's not why "it's part of Obama's campaign strategy". The fact that McCane bent over and spent the next 8 years licking Bush's boots and agreeing with him on almost everything including torture (after a half ass and deeply cowardly act of being against it for a minute) is how everybody with any sense at all *knows* that MCCane will just be the next Bush who was just the next Reagan. Same shitty policies, same shitty results. Some people never learn though.
In short its a thousand times more complex then what you and many others think. You'd sort of have to live here to understand the different points of view and why they think the way they do.
No, it's really not at all more complex. People make up all sorts of delusional nonsense so they can tell themselves they aren't being stupid. It just means they're good at fooling themselves, not that they aren't being stupid.
There is no legitimate doubt that a McCane administration would be merely a continuation of failed policies. That's what people who vote along party lines cause to be fact. There is no reasonable doubt. Just look at who he picked for his running mate. A vacuous idiot who is the governor of Alaska, the queen of the welfare states, and a greedy little piggy who begged for the bridge to nowhere and then bald facedly lied about a matter of the public record. That demonstrates complete contempt for the American citizens. Yeah, there's really some doubt for a sane person there.
... come back to me when nagios v3 is marked stable. :P
Unmask it, it works fine for me on x86_64. I upgraded over a month ago, no issues and many improvements.
John McCain can't type because his arms were repeatedly broken by the Vietnamese while he was a POW. Why do you insult disabled veterans?
Because he's a fucking scumbag liar who has completely pissed away any integrity that he might once have had by being an active supporter of torturing innocent people and made up bullshit wars?
Are you really that fucking stupid that you needed that pointed out to you?
Joining the military doesn't make one a "good guy" especially when we have no credible military threats (and haven't for decades) and even more so when you're as pathetic at it as McCain was.
No one is above the law. No one is beneath it, either, not even politicians.
Actually, the politicos in Washington have officially put themselves above the law and all of us beneath it. That's what the Patriot act, and the criminal spying they just gave AT&T a get out of jail free card are all about.
So while what you say *should* be true, it obviously isn't. Given the well established fact that it isn't even close to the truth, the only rational view for a *citizen*, as opposed to a subject is that members of the government are completely outside the protection of the law and nothing done to them is in any way wrong.
They consider the law to be something to be twisted in order to use it against decent ethical citizens, which is treasonous and quite clearly demonstrates their position.
The only thing that is bizarre in this whole affair is you and your position.
Why do you feel that elected officials in Washington should be above the law? Why do you think that a citizen acting in defense of his country against criminal traitors is the bad guy?
In short, what is wrong with you that you want to be a salve and force everyone else down that path?
Like I said, your assertion is what *should* be true. It is not at all true, so you need to deal with that reality, rather than pretend that your delusional statement is actually in any way related to reality.
Great attitude... if you want to ensure no honorable person runs for office.
I don't know where the hell you're posting from, but in America, this is already the situation and has been for quite some time. We're discussing ways to address this issue. You're spouting delusional nonsense.
The federal government has already proven absolutely and beyond the possibility of a doubt that they can not be trusted. Pretending that holding them accountable for their willfully chosen actions will cause what already is to suddenly happen shows a deep misunderstanding on your part of cause and affect at the very least.
Your assertion requires the presupposition that a unborn child is not a human.
No, dipshit, your assertion that it is a full blown human being deserving of more rights than an actual human being is what requires a presupposition. Women are not your slaves. You have no right to force them to ruin their lives bearing children they can't afford to make you happy. Go live in a totalitarian society if you want to, don't try to fuck up this one worse than you already have.
No, that's propaganda. If you redefine terms to suit your political agenda, it doesn't make your opposition liars.
Glad you realize that. Now quit redefining terms to suit your entirely fucking evil political agenda of demanding women be your slaves. It's disgusting and does nothing to help anybody and only harms all involved. Grow up and realize you do not get to decide when and if people you don't even know have children.
No, pro-lifers want neither to make pregnancy banned nor compulsory. That choice is left to the individual. One method of implementing that choice, being abortion, is the target of their campaign.
Yes, they do want to make continued pregnancy against the will of the only person with any right to decide compulsory. That's what banning abortion is for and that's all that it can possibly do.
It is just as I suspected, you aren't interested in rational debate. Be my guest, post last. There is no need for me to reply again.
Actually, I am, but you are incapable of dealing rationally with this issue. You feel that you have the right to force a woman to bear a child she doesn't want and can't afford solely because you feel she should have to. The fact that you think you have any place being involved in another person's private life to such an overwhelmingly invasive degree demonstrates absolutely, your inability to deal rationally with this issue. Sane people don't think they magically get to control extremely personal decisions of people they don't even know.
You continually claim that taking away her choice in the matter isn't anti-choice, that's insane and disgustingly dishonest. But again, that's what you get when you try and shove religious beliefs into the laws of an explicitly non-religious system of government. This kind of disgustingly evil crap is why religious delusion was explicitly banned from being codified into law in this country.
Ok, so we'll call pro-life anti-choice and pro-choice baby-killers.
No, that's stupid. pro-life is a lie, they're pro fetus rights over human rights and anti-choice. Those are facts.
Nobody is talking about killing babies and you look like a fool when you pretend that's even relevant.
Anti-abortion is not anti-choice, it is not against the act of making a choice itself, it is against that one particular act of having an abortion.
Sure it's against allowing people to make a choice about what goes on inside their own bodies.
I've never seen any pro-life material that claims we should all live our lives completely under compulsion because having a choice is bad. It isn't about choice, it's about abortion.
Semantics and meaningless. They want to restrict people's *choices* about what goes on inside their own bodies and it's hard to imagine a more invasive power to give to big government at the expense of individual liberty.
People who want abortions do want an additional choice, so pro-choice is a reasonable label, but anti-choice is not accurate at all.
No, there is no additional choice, that's again a deeply dishonest way to attempt to mislead.
They do not want religious loons restricting their choices. Nothing gives those loons the right to crawl up inside another person's uterus. If they want to live in a theocracy, they can move to Iran. That's the system they think they want, let them go find out what sane people have known for centuries.
Since in this thread nobody up till now had mentioned anything about religion, it's hard to see what point you're making here. Oh I see, it's flamebait. I guess it is smart of you to try and distract from the lack of substance in your argument, kudos.
Nor flamebait, fact. The anti-choice movement is a religious one. Yes, there are some deluded fools who aren't religious who also want extremist invasive government policies too, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a religious movement.
Interesting. I wasn't familiar with those areas of research.
They're obviously not mainstream, but that doesn't have the same negative connotation as it does in physics. Those aren't in any way the mathematical equivalent of perpetual motion or anything of the sort.
I wouldn't want to play around in such a limited, restricted sandbox, because the results available outside it are so neat and powerful, but it's perfectly valid mathematics so knock yourself out and have fun with it ;-)
Actually I do still have a point which remains: that pro-life doesn't mean anti-choice as claimed, women still have choice even if they don't have access to abortion. That is not an anti-abortion argument, it's a "anti-incorrect labelling of people who disagree" argument.
Nonsense.
They are anti-choice. They do not want to allow women to make *their own* choices about what goes on inside their own bodies. They're willing to provide a subset of choices which they will permit those poor dumb girls who are too stupid to know what the correct choices they may make are, which they can choose from, but that's not at all the same thing. It's deeply dishonest of you to claim that they are the same thing.
The label is precise and absolutely correct. Your religious delusions have no bearing on that.
For someone who thinks that human history is the story of negating causality rather than discovering and implementing it, you might consider learning to think yourself. Perhaps learning reading comprehension while you're at it.
Cold weather is a cause. Dying of exposure is an undesired natural effect. Warm clothing and shelter is a human invention to mitigate or eliminate that undesirable natural effect.
Obviously your reading comprehension skills are the problem, not mine.
In both cases, the issue is not inferiority, the issue is wrongness.
A militant death grip on ignorance and gross wrongness makes a person inferior to one who isn't afraid to think and learn.
It's not being wrong that is the problem, it's the repeated pushing for such wrongness in the face of all the evidence in the interest of duping people into fucking themselves and their future for your short term gain, and the cowardly refusal to *admit* you're wrong and move on.
Anyone who claims the unrestricted right to abortion is claiming that you have a right to engage in activity that you know is likely to result in pregnancy and still have an abortion, negating the natural consequences of that activity.
Unless you live naked in a cave eating raw whatever you can pick up off of the ground, you have no point at all.
All of human history is the story of us finding ways to negate the natural consequences of actions. Please pull your head out of your ass and learn to think.
I think the iPhone/AT&T locking is terrible. However, how does releasing a phone that is only licensed to work with a single cell carrier who is subsidizing part of the cost have to do with being a monopoly?
Well, they're not subsidizing the cost. They are offering kickbacks to Apple for people who sign up for AT&T. That's a huge difference.
I never signed up for AT&T, so apple didn't receive one penny from AT&T from my company's purchase of my iPhone.
That doesn't do anything to answer your question, but it does do something to make sure you're even asking the right question.
Unfortunately, your "accurate generalization" was dead wrong. I am not a big-government fascist s***bag. I am a libertarian, and as such I see elements of socialism in both Communism and Fascism - indeed, in any group, including those of the left or right wing who seek increased government control "for the good of all".
Oh, ok, I get it.
You're a fucking idiot.
You use a term to mean something completely different than what it actually means, it just so happens to be a redefinition pushed by the fascist shitbags in this country for the purpose of marginalizing the specific ideology that you claim to be a supporter of, and then whine that you get pegged as a supporter of what you actually are working to support.
Right, my bad.
No, fuck that. Your bad..
Socialism is Communism light. To get from Socialism to Fascism you have to skip completely over Liberalism (Classical Liberalism, not what idiot Americans allowed the founding philosophy of their nation to be redefined as. It's pretty much what you think you believe in ) to the complete polar opposite. Now for you to claim that they're the same, you have to be an extremely stupid piece of shit, and that's a fact.
Increased government control for the good of all is the cry of the Left and the Right. It's what people like myself are against. You are for it, but you're too fucking stupid and ignorant to realize it as evidenced by that delusional shit you spouted. You're just helping try and redirect the blame by your spouting of fascist propaganda. And again, you're too fucking stupid to notice it.
. My grandfather was not in any war, but my father fought communists in Vietnam and my great-uncle fought fascists in WW2.
Hot tip idiot. Your father was not fighting communists in Vietnam. He was fighting for fascists. Pull your head out of your ass and think, nay, learn. My father and step father were in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and various other places which it was illegal for them to be in. Unlike you and presumably your father, they were young and dumb, but they actually managed to pull their heads out of their asses and learn.
Did you know that Ho Chi Minh was probably the biggest booster of America that ever lived? He loved the hell out of every good thing we ever stood for. He wrote letters to our Presidents begging us to help them throw off oppression and help them become like us. This is the place where if you were not a complete douche, you'd actually look that up. I doubt you will. (That doubt is my contempt for shitbags like you.) Yet, arguing with France over how liberty is a good thing didn't fit with our weapon's industry's goals so we told him to fuck off and be a good slave (amusingly enough, that was the same take Jesus had in the Bible on slavery). Now after fighting and fighting for a free society (you know, that thing you'll lyingly claim you believe in as a libertarian. Not that libertarians are liars, but you are) for years and begging for help from us and being pissed on repeatedly he turned to the USSR. Not because he liked them, not because he liked communism (he hated it far worse than you), but because it was that or live as a slave....of the fucking French.
So then, as soon as that happened, all of a sudden, from out of nowhere, we magically had enough resources to stage a false flag attack on our own fucking ships to sell the war to the public on the basis of the domino theory with a fucking domino *we* set up.
So no, your god damned father did not ever in his fucking life fight communists. He fought for fascists.
I find your claim interesting that "'You deserve this despite your ability to pay' sounds socialist" breaks the bounds of common decency but "You are a fascist s***bag" does not. Good luck with that.
Well, again, it's your failure to know what the fuck you're talking about that makes it true.
If I said that that bum I passed on the corner deserves your wallet, then that would be socialist. If the board and executives of a bunch of ba
For the bijection to work, there must be a prime for every natural.
*and* a natural for every prime ;-) That's essentially all that "bijection" means. It's exactly the same idea as having 2 boxes with 5 things in them. Grab one out of one box and one out of the other. When both boxes are empty, if there is the same (finite) number of things in the boxes to start out with, then each thing from box one will be paired with one thing from box 2 and each thing in box 2 will have something from box one paired with it. You'll have no single items left over in either box and you'll have no triples where 2 things in one box are "paired" with one thing from the other. So for finite cases, this pulling things from boxes and laying them out side by side works. It might take a while, but when you empty both boxes, then you will know that you're done, that you didn't miss any and you can look and see if you have any extras.
You can't do this for boxes with an infinite amount of things for obvious reasons, so the idea is to come up with a way of extending the ideas to infinite sets. A bijection is the natural obvious way to do this.
So you define two sets to have equal cardinality iff there exists a bijection between the 2 sets.
Now, this would be the place where you'd want to object to the definition itself if you're so inclined. I can't think of anything that does a better job of extrapolating from the finite case, but maybe you can. Once you agree that the definition is "good", then all else follows directly and absolutely.
At that point, to prove that any 2 infinite sets have the same cardinality, all you have to do is come up with a bijection between the 2 sets. Coming up with a function between the 2 sets that isn't a bijection does nothing for you, since out of the infinite number of possible functions from one set to the other, there only need to be one bijection.
On the other hand, to show that 2 infinite sets do not have the same cardinality, it's necessary to prove that it is impossible to ever construct any function from one to the other that's a bijection. Typically, this is going to be more difficult.
So, for the bijection to "work" it doesn't have to do anything at all except be a bijection. Now once you've defined a function, you still have to prove that it actually is a bijection before you can declare the 2 sets to have the same cardinality.
So in the interest of picking a case where it's easy to explicitly write down a bijection, lets demonstrate that the natural numbers and the even natural numbers have the same cardinality. This case should contain all the "problems" you have with the idea. I mean "obviously" there are only half as many even numbers are there are numbers, right?
So let N be the set of natural numbers, and let N2 be the set of even natural numbers.
Define a function f from N to N2 as follows:
f(n)=2n
It's a well defined function, every element of N is mapped by the function, and for any natural number n, 2n is obviously even.
Now my claim is that this is a bijection. Proving this involves 2 steps, proving it's one to one, and proving that it's onto.
one to one:
let x and y be in N such that f(x)=f(y). If it's a one to one function, then x has to be equal to y. This is just the definition of a one to one function.
so, f(x)=f(y) gives us 2x=2y by the specific definition of the function in question.
divide both sides by 2, and you have x=y. Therefore this function is one to one.
onto:
let a be in the set N2. To prove onto, we need to show that there exists something in N which is mapped to a.
Since a is in N2, we know it's even. That's because everything in N2 is. This means that a/2 is an integer by the definition of an even number. It's a positive integer because everything we're looking at is positive. So a/2 is in N and f(a/2)=a So the function is onto.
So it is a bijection which proves that the cardinality of the natural numbers is the same as only the even nat
Coming from someone who, without knowing who I am or how I came to my conclusions, decided I was a "big government ninny state right wing extremist fascist ****bag", that's rich!
Typical. You made a blatantly false statement which could only have been done out of malicious intent or gross ignorance making a massive untrue generalization. I made an accurate generalization in the same vein and you have nothing to respond with but whining.
In case you hadn't noticed, that's also when I ceased to believe that you were someone who could be reasoned with, hence my decision to not even bother defending or explaining my viewpoint to you.
Your viewpoint is entirely indefensible. It's based on your ignorance of the meanings of the terms you're misusing, so there's no point in you trying ot defend it. You're wrong as I clearly pointed out. The fact that you can't take what you're trying to dish out is a character flaw.
I wasn't the one to break the rules of common decency.
Sure you did. You tried to declare anyone who made a statement to be a socialist. Trying to ignore the existence of fascists and the other right wing shitbags and pretend that that whole side of the spectrum doesn't even exist is completely disgusting. My grandfather fought against the monsters you are actively trying to cover for. That is far outside the bounds of decency. Lie all you like. I'll be happy to continue demonstrating your deep dishonesty. It's not difficult, you're that deeply ignorant.
Your reasoning assumes that time is not a factor.
That's not an assumption, it's a fact. Perhaps you're more interested in physics than mathematics?
It assumes that simultaneously there are an infinite number of naturals and an infinite number of primes available. That's a valid assumption.
No, again, those are not assumptions. Those are very well established facts which arise inevitably as soon as you get anything as complicated as counting.
But, it isn't one I wish to make.
Well, like I said, it's not an assumption. If you're interested in some sort of a system in which infinities can not arise, well then you will not have the natural numbers, the integers, and absolutely you will not have the real numbers since that's a strictly larger infinite set than the others.
You might do a search on finite groups or finite fields. They start with finite sets, have some neat properties, and are quite useful. I don't think it's really what you're looking for, but you don't even know what that is so best of luck.
You obviously don't know as much as you claim to know. Read and be enlightened:
I am quite familiar with the PMI, thanks. Hopefully uncmathguy cleared up your error to your satisfaction.
Yes, and it is this 'definition' which is flawed and arbitrary.
It's not at all arbitrary. It's very well thought out and exactly captures the idea of equality of size for finite sets. If it has any flaws, you have yet to demonstrate a single one.
It fails to account for the rates at which things grow to infinity (which is precisely the thing I want to capture with some augmented aleph number--call it a 'bet' number if you like).
It doesn't "fail to account" for it. That entire concept is completely irrelevant to the topic. Nothing is growing or changing. The only thing under discussion when talking about whether 2 sets have equal cardinality are the 2 sets themselves. Two fixed and unchanging sets. Nothing is growing, nothing is changing, and absolutely nothing is in any way shape or form growing to infinity.
You seem to be talking about limits, but those don't even exist in this context. Limits require more structure than just sets. Heck, "growing" requires more information than exists in the concept of sets.
{1,5,7} is *exactly* the same set as {7,1,5}. They look different to you, because the elements of the set are in a different order, but the concept of order doesn't even apply to sets. That requires a different concept called ( conveniently enough ) an "ordered set" which is a set *and* an order relation defined on that set..
Further, you can't even say that 5 is 4 more than 1 in this situation since the concept of distance (or arithmetic or anything of the sort ) doesn't exist here. Doing that would require at least a metric space.
Cardinality applies to plain ordinary sets with no additional structure imposed upon them, so most of the words you're using *can't* be applied in general.
There already are beth numbers, but they don't do what you want either. Most likely that is because you don't even understand what it is that you're objecting to. You need to be able to clearly and unambiguously state what you mean. You haven't done that yet. You just keep complaining about how some things work. You need to understand what we're talking about before you're going to be able to actually understand if there even is any issue or path forward to anything interesting though.
Your complaint about my critique of your attempt at a proof by induction demonstrates a deep flaw in your understanding of the topic under discussion.
* From your response to uncmathguy;
But, infinity is merely a concept. You can ascribe it to both of these if you wish, but I simply think that loses some information about the relation.
And again, you fail to mention one single scrap of information that could possibly be "lost". It's an absolute fact that you're dead wrong on that. Maybe what you want to say is that there is a different relationship that you are interested in which is not illuminated by this, but that is a completely different thing. If you want to get anywhere in mathematics or any other area based on rational thought, you are going to have to learn how to speak precisely about whatever it is that you think you're talking about.
Maybe another concept is called for?
To do what? The problem is that you haven't come up with a single flaw, a single missing piece of information, or anything in any way needing another concept. If you really think you have something interesting to say, maybe you should try really, really hard to actually say it without misusing terms you don't understand and without glancing at a link and suggesting I be enlightened by it when you don't even understand what it says?
But I thought it was made back in the 60/70s to wipe out gay and black people! You mean it wasn't the government or the Jews that did it? /loony
What are you talking about?!?!
You are aware that both Jews and the government existed 100 years ago, right? So there's really no problem with that theory still....Well...ok...there's no *new* problem with that "theory" just because it's pushed back a few decades ;-)
In short a cute gay guy might have a higher chance of having children than I do :).
I was in high school when I figured out that gay haters are fucking morons. Let's see, they're (massively generalizing) largely in good shape, snazzy dressers and know how to talk to girls about all that emotional crap.....And I want them for competition why exactly?
That's what the gays and swingers are doing, not the conservatives.
There is substantial overlap between those groups, dipshit.
+5 Balls
Wouldn't that make walking a tad awkward?
Let's back up a moment.
Fair enough.
All I've been saying about Godel's theorem is that it doesn't have anything to do with the question of whether this wiki's goal makes sense.
True. Several people have been arguing that it did, but they're all wrong because they've either completely misunderstood Gödel's theorems or misunderstood the goal of this project.
I assert merely that if a piece of mathematical knowledge is truly known, then it has a proof, and that if it has a real proof then that proof can be checked by a machine.
Yes, absolutely. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I must have implicitly added more to what you were saying about that bit than you actually were.
Since humans are machines, this would seem to be true in a very obvious way.
Makes sense, although just because we can do something doesn't necessarily mean that the engineering problem of building a machine to do the same thing is surmountable. Eventually, I'd like to think that it will be, but who knows. Given the limits of this project, it would seem reasonable that it's doable, although I don't really know enough about formal verification and the like to say.
Your whole idea seems to hinge on "within arithmetic". Well I don't care what system you work in. Either you have a proof of truth/falseness or the fact is not known. Maybe that proof involves a proof of undecidability within a certain system, but it doesn't matter.
Thank you for the compliment, but it's not my idea. The person you're looking for is Kurt Gödel. If you're going to attempt to rationally discuss his results you might consider taking a few minutes to actually understand the statement of them.
"within arithmetic" is absolutely essential...or within whatever system you're dealing with. The Goldbach conjecture is stated within arithmetic, so it's the only system that matters for this. The fact that it's possible to prove things about arithmetic from the outside is perfectly in line with his theorems.
There is no problem with this.