Carrock

If this is literally true it must be one of the least enforced laws in the world. A reference for someone being prosecuted would be appreciated.

In your OP you asked rhetorical questions and now you say my post has an unstated clear purpose. Any response to you can be met with "I only stated unreferenced 'facts' without attribution; your response attributes false purpose and reasoning to my posts." I'll just mention one point from you. So a child brought up to be ignorant about sex knows that it's good and/or moral to search for forbidden knowledge on the internet. They also know without being told how not to become victims of internet predators.

As you're referring to the U.S., a major reason is the success of the religious right in inhibiting access to sex education, safe sex info, treatment for STIs, contraception and abortion. Maximising harm to those who do not adhere to their concept of morality is an aim of evangelicals etc.

A problem is that if you assume the necessity of a creator with knowledge, then that creator had to be created by a creator with knowledge and so on - infinite regression. Religion often uses the creator concept since logic or rational thought is irrelevant.

Even though you're on my ignore list, I still get notified when you invent quotes of things I never said - see the referred post. It's just possible it was accidental this time. Don't do it again.

"YOU are the one claiming that the hypothesis is false" No. I'm claiming that the proofs are not valid. Significant difference. You're moving the goalposts. A false proof that 'irrationals can always be surrounded by rationals' is consistent with my saying 'irrationals cannot always be surrounded by rationals.' So you won't can't provide a single example of a valid proof or provide your own 'easy' proof. You're effectively claiming that a hypothesis without proof or a flawed proof is true unless a counterexample is provided. duh. I'll put you on the ignore list so we can both stop wasting time.

What is the original proof you're referencing? If that proof is flawed it doesn't stand.

It's too late at night for me to engage brain before making a proper reply. You've reminded me that in school some screechy old maths teacher said "There is no such thing as infinity." "Shut up and calculate" was all he ever taught us. Shame no one stole his answer book. More later.

Excellent. So you have now seen how to prove that between two real numbers there is a rational number. Now that you have seen how that works, why do you insist that there is anything wrong with it? So you do think irrational numbers are the same as rational numbers.

So all the proofs are just wrong, but you are not going to tell us where they go wrong? How many disproofs would you and Studiot require to be (impressive)? The first two mapped irrational numbers to rational numbers and then generated a new rational number proving you can always generate new rational numbers between irrationals. I'm not sure if I can prove to your satisfaction that there are more irrational numbers than rationals so I'm done here.

I used a notification link and missed your post - sorry. I looked at https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/421580/is-there-a-rational-number-between-any-two-irrationals from your links. First two proofs wrong. I'm not going to refute unlimited incorrect proofs. Less impressive than one link to a wrong proof.

That was just a casual example. I'm not familiar with the subtleties of well-ordering so I may have got it wrong. This statement is true no matter how the set is ordered. There is no way you can use aleph-null rationals to separate all the 2exp(aleph-null) points on a line.

No. That would require that the cardinality of the set of rational numbers be the same as the cardinality of the set of irrational numbers. i.e. 2exp(aleph-null) = aleph-null.

How can it be full? A full set would include rationals (which have been removed). aleph-one - aleph-null = aleph-one. By 'full set' I meant a set of the same size as the set o reals i.e. they can be put in one-to-one correspondence. Analogously, the infinite sets 1,2,3,4..... and 1,1,2,1/2,3,1/3,4,,1/4..... are the same size My point was that there is not a rational number between every two irrational numbers in any real number set. i.e. points are not in general separated when rational numbers are removed. e.g. there is no rational number larger than 2exp(1/2) and smaller than the next highest irrational number.

Surely not. In the real numbers there is a full set of real numbers between each two rational numbers.

It's indeed wrong, but I couldn't see a refutation in the thread. Classically (i.e. if heat was not subject to gravity), if you have a tall column of gas in a vertical gravitational field at equilibrium, the temperature of the gas is constant while its density (and pressure) decreases with height. Otherwise you could run a small perpetual motion machine using the difference in temperature.

"Virtually all Senate Democrats running in Trump states who voted against Brett Kavanaugh were defeated" Why let facts spoil a good headline?

Unless they're hoping Donald Trump will give them a lucrative job, like head of the EPA.

It's standard practice for your password to be encrypted and unavailable even to someone with access to the forum's database. See e.g. http://www.jasypt.org/howtoencryptuserpasswords.html

Luckily I left this topic on my browser and refreshed it or I'd never have seen your edit.... Hard to analyse a video compared to text... Around 5m 20s '"Spooky action at a distance" says that...' At 5min32sec "information in quantum mechanics can travel faster than light" etc followed shortly by 'Nobody understands this, but it's well established and it's a true effect.' "Spooky action at a distance" is well understood mathematically (not by Doctor Don Lincoln) though there is disagreement about its implications, much like 'observing' in quantum mechanics. Action at a distance does not involve the superluminal transfer of information. 'Information' as used by Doctor Don Lincoln has an unspecified different meaning from the normal meaning as in 'information cannot move faster than light.' When I see a false statement justified by 'Nobody understands this' (i.e. the author doesn't understand it) I don't see the point in watching the rest of a video where nothing I don't know already can be trusted. Doctor Don Lincoln does hint that his 'information' is different but anyone trying to learn from this video will likely conclude that physics is really difficult and should be left to clever people like him.

At 5min32sec "information in quantum mechanics can travel faster than light" etc

I watched part of the second video. A claim was that you can send information FTL using quantum entanglement (false) but you can't send a message FTL (true). The sort of video that's worse than a waste of time.

Yes. Both are the Northern Line.

I can't resist providing some local knowledge. Euston Station is two stops away from Camden Town station. This particular statement is true. Euston Station is one stop away from Camden Town station. This particular statement is true. These facts are very important in the rules* of "Mornington Crescent," a simple game often played on the quiz show "I'm sorry I haven't a clue." *See "Mornington Crescent: Rules and Origins" by N. F. Stovold. [/offtopic]

Lack of representation is generally associated with other discriminatory treatment or lack of other rights. I suspect prisoners, in particular, would not vote for politicians who accept money from private prison owners to legislate for more and longer prison sentences for minor offences. In practice, such legislation disproportionately affects those who can't afford to hire a good lawyer. Prisoners would probably make an exception for judges who receive bribes for jailing people for minor offences.