joigus

It's not like there still are more than 100 innocent civilians kept as prisoners, raped, abused, undernourished, deprived of their medicines, under a death threat every single day since last October 7th, in Gaza; in some cases, executed for logistic expediency. It's not like more than 80,000 Israelies have been displaced from their homes thanks to Hezbollah. It's not like any Israeli Arab is culturally, ethnically, linguistically indistinguishable from a non-Israeli Arab from Gaza or the West Bank (aka 'Palestinian') but, for some magical reason, those are not being ethnically cleansed. It's not like children are being trained by Hamas to torture and kill Israelies in special training camps, and in the specific case of Be'eri children were given torches to burn people alive in their panic rooms. Because, you know, it's more fun when a child commits murder. It's not like Hamas has purposefully and systematically made civilian people and facilities blend in with military depos and headquarters and made guerrillas dress as ordinary guys, or as women in burkas. It's not like the leaders of Hamas* themselves have said that the death of their children is a necessary sacrifice and those that die on behalf of the advancement of Islam are now in Paradise. Oh, wait. It is. It is exactly like that. Oh, yes. It is. Hamas and Hezbollah are cults (same as ISIL, ISIS, etc), steeped in 7th-century ideology post-processed as a political brand for the purposes of the advancement of the Islamic Republic of Iran to become the next Caliphate. They will never sit to negociate anything, mid or long term. * Ismail Haniyeh: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/4/10/israeli-forces-kill-three-children-of-hamas-leader-ismail-haniyeh-in-gaza

Why is the Bible relevant in General Philosophy? I'm sure the Bhagavad Gita has a different take on it. Philosophy is supposed to be objective.

"Evil", referring to Nature, is a figure of speech. You're stretching the concept, using a trope. From Oxford: From Merriam-Webster: As you can see, the more literal meaning in both sources involves intention. The other ones are tropes.

'Cruel' = unnecessarily harmful of painful If I inflict pain or harm on you, but I can't help it for one reason or another, I'm being cruel If I inflict pain or harm on you out of an existencial threat on me, I'm not being cruel, I'm acting out of necessity

I remember having had this discussion with my little brother when we were both very young. I pointed out that a really cruel god that keeps us as toys for his/her/its nasty little games was a logical possibility. He told me to shut up immediately. He's proven to be a very intelligent man, actually, but at that point he couldn't bear the thought. We were raised as Catholics, btw.

More specific even. A common occurrence: Haitians with a Pekingese. Impossible to rule that out.

Are you sure there's not a dog with them?

It's very very hard to get priority/recognition etc in modern mathematics. It's a very cute proof, that's all I can say.

That's exactly what I thought too. Based on size and proportions and from what I've seen in documentaries... They look kinda slender, not as bulky as other whale species.

Beautiful. Do you happen to know the species?

Let's hope no doctors who were time traveling forward from the '90s have been harmed in this vicious attack.

Interesting topic IMO, got off to a bad start IMO for reasons adroitly pointed out. Conspiracy theory = Contention that a question generally considered as settled, actually is not due to a relatively small clique of influential people keeping the gates to "the real truth" hermetically closed for years on end. Doesn't work because of reasons pointed out that I like to call objective descriptions of "reality" being congruences of nearly limitless lines of both reasoning and evidence, the more unlikely to hide the longer alleged CT lasts.

How does? I can only tell the difference between "fishy" and "just about right".

Education.

Nature has no will. Thereby the fallacy. "Live long and prosper" is just a Vulcan salute, not what Nature has in store for us.

Sure. When this topic surfaced before, I remember we went over the difficulties of interstellar travel too. People tend to forget how bleak outer space is, how incompatible with human life, or any kind of life for that matter, and the sheer vastness involved. I more or less tried to include aspects like these in my camel analogy.

Agreed. On a related line of reasoning: And, Connecting to my previous argument, you're giving one particular reason why you never find camels in the North Pole: Why would they bother? In few words, it's an argument from silence, and although that doesn't rule it out necessarily, it should make us be weary of its rationale. It is my understanding that Fermi himself didn't pursue it very much at all. I get the feeling that there can be no blue potatoes. My firm belief is based on two recurrent experimental facts, One: Every time I see a potato, it's not blue Two: Every time I see something blue, it's not a potato But that may just be because in this part of the universe all potatoes are non-blue. As to erasion, that's more of an argument from noise.

Ok, this discussion is well over my head, but the reason I asked whether the rock was constantly affected by water was precisely motivated by the colour. You seem to rule out the possibility that the greenish colour be due to microscopic mats? I know I'm probably thinking of the obvious. A geologist's pick would settle it, of course. As to local knowledge, againg probably thinking of the obvious, I always try to get as many information leaflets, brochures and such from the local tourism office. Surprisingly enough, you sometimes find some valuable specifics about the geological history of the area, botanicals, etc. I'm sure you know all these things and just didn't get the chance to settle this then and there.

Ok. Thank you. That's a tad more information than I needed. Unfortunately I won't be able to pay you a visit any time soon. I'll take a look at the most significant bits when I get the time. Also, if you don't mind my saying, I would advise you to lower down a bit your expectations of getting credit. Most of these series have been summed and understood centuries ago.

Ok. I'm not gonna say much here, but I'd bet DT would rather have had a hall packed full of crooks now (the Thomas Mathhew kind, if you know what I mean). Now, that was a bloodbath.

Poodles are delicious. I find them much softer than mastiffs. And much easier to catch...

I've heard it's been raining cats and dogs last night in America...

Ok, I went back to your square, but on second thought I can't make sense of it. I thought I understood (crudely) what you were trying to do. Now I see you're dividing the square into pieces that actually overlap, so it's not a partition of the square really. It's something else. So I went to a completely analytical POV, ignoring the picture. I see no proof of convergence yet. Maybe you provided it before on some other thread, but I missed it. In purely analytical language, what you're saying is that, \[ \sum_{n,m=2}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n^{m}}=1 \] which, yes you're right can be proven, as the partial sum satisfies, \[ \sum_{n=2}^{k}\sum_{m=2}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n^{m}}=1-\frac{1}{k} \] So, yes, you're absolutely right AFAICT. But I still don't understand your square, I'm sorry. I had to interpret it purely analitically, with no pictures. PS: I tried to relate it to Riemann's zeta function, but I fell back to an infinity-infinity indeterminate, \[ \sum_{n,m=2}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n^{m}}=\sum_{m=2}^{\infty}\left(\zeta\left(m\right)-1\right) \] as I told you your method seems to indicate. The way to go is to build the partial sum Anyway... I'm a bit tired to do hard math now. That was fun.

Lol!

Sorry, I made a mistake here. Both sides have n-dependence. I'll get back asap.