John Cuthber

"Bump" I'd like an answer or two please. in particular, I have a Prime Minister who I could do without, so what do I have to say to kill him?

2 times 3 means ## ## ## 3 times two means ### ### They are the same

Dear sir, due to a clerical error in processing your cheque, your current balance is showing up as imaginary. Unfortunately since we are a bank we only deal in real money. We apologise for any inconvenience.

So was mine, but with a rather more inclusive "we". If we all fight for the rights of those less fortunate than ourselves we make the whole world better.

Indeed, but that doesn't seem to help. I'm reasonably wealthy, white, male and live in the affluent West. I hardly need anyone to fight for my rights- I pretty much have them. So perhaps it would be better if I fought to the rights of those less well off than I am, and left them to fight for my rights. Obviously, their disadvantaged state means that they can't put a lot of effort into supporting me, but it hardly matters- I'm already doing OK. On the other hand, I'm relatively well placed to improve their lot. At worst, I don't lose much, and they gain a lot. Seems a better approach to me.

"What rights should we fight for?" Other people's

no, you have to read, and understand it. "Normal magnetite is attracted to a magnet but some specimens are automagnetized " Clearly, some are not.

Yet everyone else does. Do you think that's because everyone else is wrong? At the risk of sounding like a stuck record. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

I can see it being returned as "illegible"

So, what you want to do is make life more difficult for lots of people. that way when ISIS say "we are the only ones who can help you against the evil Americans" everyone will believe them. Obviously the fact that all those people would then support ISIS (what choice would they have) would reduce ISIS' power influence and finance. It's also far from clear to me that ISIS soldiers get a pay cheque, so the idea of stopping it seem strange. And I guess you are not from Mexico.

it says a lot that a cartoon like that is put forward as a spoof. Governments can give people free stuff forever; they just have to tax people to pay for it. In the short term they can do it by borrowing. you might say that's not "forever", but when was the last time all the countries in Europe were all out of debt? If a few corrupt individuals screw things up at just the same time that a world-wide crisis hits the money markets you get a problem. It is interesting to note that, in the last hundred years, Germany has defaulted on debt as often as Greece has. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_default#List_of_sovereign_debt_defaults_or_debt_restructuring

The trouble is that 2 times 3 is the same as 3 times 2. Your suggestion is that, in some way they are different. but you don't say why you think that. Now there are mathematical entities such as matricies where the order of multiplication matters and where A times B is not always the same as B times A and you may have "invented" another sort of thing like that which is all fine and dandy, but it doesn't tell me anything about dividing ordinary numbers by zero- because these new rules don't apply to ordinary numbers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

To take the last point first, If it's so damned sacrosanct, why do they keep changing it? if they accept that it can change why pretend that the current version is some sort of holy writ that an't be altered. The purpose of a militia is to ensure that you can defend yourselves. Well being largely surrounded by oceans helps there. In any event, since the US has an extraordinarily large standing military (1) it is unlikely to be attacked by another country- at least not in a way where a militia would help. (2) If the government decides to oppress the people, just exactly how far will your pop-guns get you when you take on the combined US armed forces? On a related note, you may have missed this, but your police forces are armed and are actually well regulated and subject to locally elected control; they are your militia. You say "But people have died as a consequence of the exercise of those rights," OK, what do I need to say to get someone killed? What's the magic "death spell" that I need to speak to bring about someone's demise?

Well, looking on the bright side, he has solved the question of whether it was a one-off ill thought through rant. I guess he's not trying to target the Hispanic voters. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/republicans/11734214/Donald-Trump-says-Mexicans-are-killing-us-in-latest-inflammatory-speech.html

You need to translate this "the first symbol(number) is value only" into plain English Also, even if you are redefining the whole of arithmetic (which is possible, but brave) you need to explain what you mean by this "Any number in operation of multiplication or division is only representing a value or a space in any given equation. ". ​If you are not seeking to invent a new arithmetic, then you are wrong in making the assertion and also youhave not addressed the real world problem of division by zero in conventional arithmetic. It is possible that you will come up with some system where there is a definition of zero and where you can divide by it. It's even possible that you will find a way round the contradictions that flow from any conventional definition of what you call zero. it still won't help the lawyer divide up the £120,000. So it still won't serve much purpose.

My 'phone remembers phone numbers for me. In the event of nuclear Armageddon (which, BTW, the internet was explicitly designed to survive) I guess I will struggle to charge my 'phone. On the other hand, there will be nobody to call and I very much doubt that remembering that C is about 2.997925 E 8 m/s will help in any way at all. My recollection of chemistry might help me purify water without remembering the atomic weight of chlorine (which is slightly variable anyway because the isotope ratio isn't constant). Knowing that you can get chlorine form salt water and a car battery is more likely to help than knowing the value of Faraday's constant.

That's fine. it's just that earlier you said "Yes, John, I do. That's why I said "piece of iron", not a magnet. Maybe I should've made it more clear. Black dust will stick to the iron, red dust shouldn't, as it's very weakly magnetic. " And I'm still waiting for a reply to my question "why would either of them stick to a piece of (un-magnetised) iron?" Of course, there's still a problem. The particle size for example. A bigger problem is the fact that the particles will stick to each other in the presence of any applied magnetic fiels. ​None of this will help if there are particles containing a mixture of the materials (as I suspect would often be the case)

Good. Then you can show me what my lawyer friend should do and you should show how it avoids an inconsistency where a/0 =a/1 hence 1=0.

Why do Americans seem to think that the constitution is so important? It had seven articles in the first place, but has been amended 27 times. Would a 28th amendment that effectively said " we will try to reduce the number of gun deaths from at least 8 times as high as the rest of the civilised world" be a bad thing? Also, since what it says is "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" and there's no way that most gun owners could be called a "well regulated" anything, the point is moot. Nobody got killed by a speech. No religion ever killed anyone. No press article ever killed anyone. People have died because someone wasn't searched and found to have- for example- a gun. But that's not arbitrary search- that's searching law breakers. The difficult of distinguishing the two is a problem, but not an issue of the constitutional right. So, the right to freedom from arbitrary search never killed anyone.

The symbol for gold isn't going to change. I do remember the values of some of the fundamental constants to a few sig. fig, but there's no point to spending time explicitly memorising them. As String Junky points out, you will learn them anyway if you use them much. But the important thing is to remember what todo with the numbers, not what their values are.

You miss the point. Until you can define how to perform the operation, you can not know what the outcome is. And, since you have repeatedly failed to explain how to perform the operation, you have got nowhere (though you have wasted a lot of time). So your question is the wrong way round. You asked "Name one other equation John where the sum, is answered by defining or (lack there of) of the operation. " Well, I'm turning that round Name one equation, Conway, where the sum is answered by not defining the operation.

Not nearly as often as they harm themselves.

Raw?

To be fair, the choice isn't great http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/12/1384334/-Is-Jeb-Bush-the-dumb-one# http://www.salon.com/2011/05/12/rand_paul_dumb/ http://uk.businessinsider.com/top-gop-operative-calls-scott-walker-kind-of-a-dumba--2015-2 and so on.