cosine

Yeah eugenics was a popular modernist idea that came from social darwinism. We discuss it alot in my Latin American class about transculturation.

I would say my own views are probably dead on with padren here. [over enthusiastic saturday afternoon]THANKS PEDRAN![/over enthusiastic saturday afternoon]

Sure you wouldn't. And I don't know many Africans (or other "black" people such as Jamaicans) insulted by the term "black." However more and more you can notice forms and such starting to use terms such as African, Caucasian, European (instead of using Caucasion that is), etc. just because it is more factually correct anyway.

Oops, I forgot to include that one. I remember consiously telling myself to put it in. Oh well time to add to the list of rhetoric questions: Are Europeans literally white? Are Aliens literally grey? And are all "greys" aliens? You were right I forgot to include everyone in my list, but don't look too much into it. Right, this would be my position. I agree, however things that are actually "extreme" never gain enough momentum to be legitamized claims. However the points of the original women in the op were quite justifiable.

The other information in the universe would be the conservation of energy I believe. You put energy into that hot water, and if you don't cool it down, then that heat will still not leave to someplace else.

For the geometry I would get H.S.M. Coxeter's Introduction to Geometry.

Basically what I imagine is a population growth curve, minus the bell curve. The gap between demand (the population curve) and supply (bell curve) would grow faster than if demand remained constant. A lot faster. If you have access to a graphing calculator (you can use one at http://www.coolmath.com), graph 1) [math]ae^{x}[/math] the population curve 2) [math]ae^{k-(x-k)^{2}}[/math] the bell curve with peak at [math]x=k[/math] 3) [math]ae^{x} - ae^{k-(x-k)^{2}}[/math] to see the difference between them. By the way, a is just a height scaling scalar.

Why worry about books from that period? I don't not much about lattices... I'm reading a book from 1969 by H.S.M. Coxeter called Introduction to Geometry, incredible reference!

Hm interesting observation. I expect it would be (A+a+B+b+C+c)*(A+a+B+b+C+c) unless there is something I misunderstand about the question?

Okay I'm back, and I had a thought to elaborate more: My position is that while analogies may be used as a starting point to suggest further investigation, they can not be used to substantiate a point.

Don't do it! Haha trust me I spent more time than I should have trying to solve that system. Its related to the roots of a cubic. Whatever answer you get like Dave said will be a cubic, because any of the roots of the cubic will satisfy any of those variable properties, because the conditions you've placed on them are all commutative, so you can switch them around as much as you want.

The creation of this thread being rightly inspired by Pangloss: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=227050&postcount=42 I don't mind at all! Here are the analogies that inspired this: Pangloss's Grocer/President analogy: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=226783&postcount=36 Then there was the second analogy: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=226909&postcount=39 And my subsequent response: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=226929&postcount=41 So now that you're all caught up... Analogies are attempts to compare two like things, to try to map the properties of one onto another. However when two systems have intrinsic differences, its important not to overapply the properties of one onto another. For example, in mathematics 1=1, and we usually apply that to metersticks, where the length of one meterstick is equal to the length of another. However if one meter stick is hurled at the sun and it burns into flames, and one kept on earth, then the one on earth is not equal to the one burnt up in the sun. Gah, time for class, hope that was a good example, though I'm not sure if the connection with analogies is readily obvious. But before I go for now, I'd just like to say: An analogy to a situation is like getting a crayon-drawn stick figure after asking an artist for a portrait. Edit: So yeah, I didn't explicitly state this: What are your thoughts on analogies? Please, discuss amongst yourselves. AND OMG MY 100th POST!

No problem, I was almost hoping I had said something interesting enough to be cited by another thread. First of all, analogies are attempts to find isomorphisms... however they are frequently false isomorphisms. I really don't see how your analogies are applying or what they even mean. And you admit that they crossed a line in their attempts to bring us into war. What distinctions are you arguing for exactly?

I think an Economics forum may be appropriate in the "Other Sciences" catagory. Does anyone agree/disagree?

Haha I love to see swift-boating become a term that characterizes underhanded and lying smear campaigns.

My point about atomic bombs in another thread? I checked my posts in my profile and didn't find anything like that.....? Are you calling us fools for expecting the president to not lie to us? Mokele expressed this point in a larger context and very well. Is your arguement has become that since the Bush administration was able to trick us, we can only blame ourselves? The article you cite explains how any possible evidence was weak if not retracted. What about the direct quotes from White House Administration I posted? Did you read them? How are they "preaching to the choir"? I dug up direct quotes to illustrate how they are not biased. What is your arguement against the administration's own words?