delusia

rbp6, you should get a PhD, get involved in R&D, and become a good investor on the side. You don't necessarily have to be CEO- or real estate-inclined to become wealthy, if you manage both your profession and portfolio really well. Meanwhile you are learning a lot, gaining insights, adding to civilization's knowledgebase, and keeping your brain fresh, even as you do the mundane of researching industries and markets. An MBA, as the prospect sounds much cleaner postdoctoral rather than vice versa, would be much easier to obtain once you have a bunch of professional and investor experience. Regarding the guideline of needing to leave wealth for your children, their children and their children, forget that. As your wealth builds, with more advancements in biotech and nanotech looming, you'll be able to invest in anti-aging and other exotic technologies. You won't need to worry about dying any time soon. Your family doesn't need you dead just to leverage the fruits of your diligence. Plan your life as you would if your maximum life potential is greater than 10,000 years. And don't worry about psychologies not being able to cope with so much life and awareness; that's just another nice challenge for business.

So true. Thanks.

The logic is understood. What's puzzling is negating mathematical expressions, such as [math]w - 3 > 0[/math] in this case. By chance would it be [math]w - 3 \leq 0[/math], and for [math]=[/math] would it be [math]\neq[/math], with regard only to equality and disregard to the terms?

This is homework-related, so hints should suffice. The text discusses how to negate conjunctions, disjunctions, conditionals, and biconditionals. The examples given are in symbolic logic and English expressions. However, some of the exercises require negating compound statements whose component statements are mathematical expressions. A sample problem is thus [math]3 < 5 \mbox{ or } 7 \geq 8[/math], whose answer at the end of the text is given as [math]3 \geq 5 \mbox{ and } 7 < 8[/math], which happens to be the only answer given. This seems to make some sense if one notes a De Morgan's Law that previously is discussed, which is [math]\neg (P \vee Q ) \Longleftrightarrow \neg P \wedge \neg Q[/math]. The confusion comes from having to negate some of the component mathematical expressions for which there is no guide. What's the intuitive explanation? It also would need to be applied to compound statements such as [math]w - 3 > 0 \mbox{ implies } w^2 + 9 > 6w[/math] and [math]a - b = c \mbox{ iff } a = b + c[/math]. Any help with this would be greatly appreciated.