GM Spirals the Drain (Part 2)

[notyoueither]

How do you define 'is'?

[chequita guevara]

Re: Two can play at this game

Originally posted by Asher
In the works of Rawls, a predominant concept is the concept of subtextual. . .

Sokal did this better than you twelve years ago. Of course, he was aiming at a legitimate target while you are obviously talking nonsense.

[Agathon]

I need everyone's cooperation to steer this conversation back to reality. The filosofer has tried to hijack the discussion to make himself look relevant in at least one way, in which he is not.

Why don't you do the world a favour and eat a gun? The world needs less sociopaths, and you are a shining example of that particular breed.

[Kuciwalker]

In the interest of moving things along, since KH is currently stuck in this fairness argument:

Arrian asked a while ago, I believe, "why is e.g. hard work considered a moral input while 'talent' is not?" The answer being that hard work is much, much cheaper to incentivize in the margin.

I believe KH's conclusion follows directly from this.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon


Why don't you do the world a favour and eat a gun? The world needs less sociopaths, and you are a shining example of that particular breed.

I like how I'm the sociopath while you're the one who wishes death upon me for trying to get this discussion back on track.

PS: What are AAPL's shares at?

[Dinner]

Re: Re: Two can play at this game

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles


Sokal did this better than you twelve years ago.

I always did like Sokal Keep.

http://www.gamebanshee.com/poolofradiance/walkthrough/sokalkeep.php

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Agathon


Yes you are. In fact, you are so out of your depth here, it's comical.

No, I'm not. You've already demonstrated that you didn't understand the market failure central to the veil of ignorance argument until I called you on it, and the rest of your blurbs about Rawls are just as laughable.

EDIT: Rest of reply deleted as a favour to those who don't want to be subjected to another of Aggie's inevitable nonsensical responses.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher
I need everyone's cooperation to steer this conversation back to reality. The filosofer has tried to hijack the discussion to make himself look relevant in at least one way, in which he is not.

I'm sorry for engaging him.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
In the interest of moving things along, since KH is currently stuck in this fairness argument:

Arrian asked a while ago, I believe, "why is e.g. hard work considered a moral input while 'talent' is not?" The answer being that hard work is much, much cheaper to incentivize in the margin.

I believe KH's conclusion follows directly from this.

Very good.

Any time the word "fair" enters your mind when thinking about economics throw the thought out and start over. Think about the incentives and the redistributional impact. That's all you need.

[MORON]

Asher, can you finally write a filosopy bot for those discussions?

The forum is demanding for another RoboCon after all.

[Asher]

Originally posted by MORON
Asher, can you finally write a filosopy bot for those discussions?

The forum is demanding for another RoboCon after all.

The generator already exists (I used it for my filosofy post).

It wouldn't be too hard to hook it up with the generator: http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/

The Computer Science research paper on how to automatically generate post-modern philosophy papers is interesting (really!), but is in PostScript format: http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/cgi-bi...+Postmodernism

[Kuciwalker]

KH, can you also explain how splitting fields prove that all finite fields of equal size are isomorphic (and why they're all of size p^k where p is prime)? My prof's lecture notes suck

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
KH, can you also explain how splitting fields prove that all finite fields of equal size are isomorphic (and why they're all of size p^k where p is prime)? My prof's lecture notes suck

Hah hah. You little Algebra I weenie.

[Kuciwalker]

I wish, then we'd have a textbook. This is for computational discrete math, which is a big mishmash of algebra and other random things in CS.

[KrazyHorse]

To see that it's always p^k we look at the characteristic of a given field F. If the characteristic of F is p*q for some p and q > 1 then (calling multiplicative identity MI and additive identity AI):

(MI+MI+...(p times)) * (MI+MI+...(q times)) = AI (by distributivity) therefore there are zero divisors, which contradicts the fact that it's a field.

Therefore, for a finite field F, we have prime characteristic p

Now, you can check that MI, MI+MI, ..., MI+MI+...(p-1 times) form a subfield of F (easy enough). Call this subfield G.

Equally put, F is an extension of G, and is therefore also vector space over the field G (elements of F are the vectors, elements of G are scalars, operations defined by field addition and multiplication respectively). Therefore F has some dimension n, so the number of elements of F is p^n (basic result of linear algebra)