Genady

Thank you. Feels better to know that I don't miss much It is rather a social thing, when everyone around me has this but I have to have something else... Bonaire, Caribbean Netherlands. No breweries here, but a distillery. They make liquors from Kadushi cactus, aka Peruvian apple, which is plentiful here. Otherwise, most everything is imported, from Europe, US, and South America.

Not because of quantity. As much as half a glass or even less give me headache. I don't know if it is related, I get headache from any milk product, too. Even a croissant, because of butter. BTW, none of the usual effects of lactose intolerance. Imagine, living in a Dutch country and not drinking beer or eating cheese

AFAIK, x2 has two square roots: +x and -x.

Driving along the main street when a cruise ship is in port and tourists cruising the town, one can say fairly quickly if they are American tourists or British tourists.

I agree 100%. Racism should be a very special kind of "nature" because I did not see it anywhere but in the US. In 20 years living in Bonaire, I didn't see even one sign of racism, in any direction. Most of the population here are of African descent, of which most are various spectra of mixes. The rest are from everywhere in the world, due to former Dutch colonies and to more recent migrations.

I read some comments with envy. Unfortunately, ANY wine - expensive as well as cheap - give me headache. Also, beer, Champaine, liquor, ...

Thanks a lot, @Markus Hanke. Please let me know if you have more thoughts on this question. No hurry.

2998.PDF (usra.edu) 54th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference 2023 (LPI Contrib. No. 2806) 2998.pdf A RELICT GLACIER NEAR MARS’ EQUATOR: EVIDENCE FOR RECENT GLACIATION AND VOLCANISM IN EASTERN NOCTIS LABYRINTHUS

According to the data above, there are 17% more obese women among black women than among white women. Even if all obese women experience maternal death, it would've made the maternal death rate among black women 17% higher than among white women. It does not explain why "black women ... were nearly three times more likely to die than white women".

I'd like to hear your advice about the next textbook on GR for me. I know the principles and the main results and don't want to go again through lengthy introductions and the basics. My goal is rather to delve into the subtleties and technicalities, calculations, examples, and exercises. What would you recommend? Thanks in advance.

The previous comment brought to mind another linguistic example of subjectivity of a judgement regarding simplicity vs complexity, namely vowels in Hebrew, or rather a lack of them. Is writing without vowels simpler or more complex than otherwise? It certainly makes texts shorter and leaves fewer possibilities to make mistakes. In fact, the vowels are not used because it turned out that they are not needed, in Hebrew. The way the language works, they can be determined by the context. OTOH, I had a discussion once with a new immigrant in Israel who believed that Israelis don't use vowels on purpose, i.e., to make learning the language more difficult for new immigrants in order to reduce their abilities to compete for jobs. This is not unlike the complaints in OP.

The discrepancy between black and white populations does not explain the entire difference between the US and other developed countries. Using the numbers mentioned in the linked article, I estimate that in white women deaths only, there are in the US, per 100000, about 65% more than in UK, Germany and France, and about 135% "higher than in Spain, Italy, Japan and several other countries".

I think you have understood me correctly. It has everything to do with physics and nothing to do with metaphysics.

Yes, it is. The observable consequences are not necessarily immediate, they can be way down the road. This might hide the importance of some features. E.g., as has been concluded in this thread already, it is important for variables to be real rather than rational because otherwise some terms in equations would be undefined, in which case the model would not be self-consistent.

It is eye opening to me: Why US mothers are more likely to die in childbirth - BBC News

This is what we are talking about for the last few posts, isn't it? Yes, different and completely imaginary story. Not interested.

I disagree with this translation. It assumes that there are 'real' space, time, or other variables. IMO, all these variables are components of our models. They are what they need to be for our models to work. That's why my question rather is, is it important / used / implied anywhere in our current models if the variables have or don't have the power of continuum. I am sorry, but it doesn't say much to me. It does not matter for being able to represent all rational numbers. Any finite size will do. Yes, this is the necessary condition for being able to represent all rational numbers.

Why? I don't see that my previous statement depends on the grid resolution. I see only two conditions for the grid: a) the steps have a finite size, and b) there are infinitely many of them.

I take it back. In an infinite discrete grid of finite cell size, all rational numbers can be represented.

In this case places represented by rational numbers would not apply too.

Which units are fundamental, and which are derived, is a matter of convenience. There is nothing fundamental in this choice.

I think I understand this intuition. To rephrase, if variables in equations were rational instead of real, some terms would be undefined. This is a good answer to the OP question. Thanks. +1

In general, no, this is not the only thing that matters to me. In this thread, yes, it is. Your previous posts are interesting on their own. We can discuss them in your thread.

@TheVat, I think we can measure 1/3 (or any other rational number) in cases when we can measure by counting. I mean, if we have counted 1000 of something and we know that there are 3000 of them in total, we have measured 1/3, right?

Thank you. Yes, I agree. The numbers we get experimentally are at best rational, but we don't get all rational numbers. But in theory? (Which is the question in OP.) Is it important anywhere in physics theory if a number is rational or irrational, or a set is countable or uncountable?