ydoaPs

x^2 = x + x + ... + x (x times) d/dx x^2 = d/dx [x + x + ... + x] 2x = x 2 = 1 Enjoy. Now, can you find the problem?

I don't actually agree with that assumption. It's part of arguing a fortiori. An argument has more force if you make assumptions that make it harder to make your point, but support the point against which you're arguing. In this case, specifically, denying this assumption in the argument would be tantamount to circular reasoning. It would be arguing that there is no fact of the matter that there is a Greatest Possible Being because there is no fact of the matter that there is no Greatest Possible Being. While logically valid, it's not persuasive, and is in fact an informal fallacy.

! Moderator Note Everybody play nice. Don't make me turn this car around.

Newton Medal award? I don't know what that is, but it sounds shiny, and I just can't turn down shiny things.

Despite how often apologists with no understanding of physics make this claim, it's not true. Fyi, two of the three have publicly stated that the above quoted claim is false, while the third, afaik, has not commented on the subject. Pro tip: Don't get your science from people who are paid to lie to gullible people

! Moderator Note I'm not sure why this wasn't closed months ago and I'm not sure why OP necroposted it yesterday, but it's closed now.

7 apples = 3 bananas

Does a chaotic neutral god not have more options for action than a lawful good god?

I contend that the concept of an objectively Greatest Possible Being ("GPB" for short) isn't a coherent concept. As the concept is about being greater than other things, we're talking about Partially Ordered Sets ("posets" for short). To argue a fortiori, I will be making the following GPB friendly assumptions: 0) The greatness interval is bound for all Great Making Property ("GMP" for short) orderings. 1) The orderings for all GMP are chains (totally ordered). 2) The greatness orderings for each GMP are objective. There is an objective fact of the matter that more moral is greater than less moral. 3) There are objective GMP. There is an objective fact of the matter as to whether a given property is a GMP. For the beginning, we'll stick with independent GMP to make things easy and to clearly illustrate the problem. Let's look at two great-making properties, P and Q. The value ordering of P is <P, <> = P1 < P2 < ... < Pn. The greatness ordering of P is <P, ≺> = P1 ≺ P2 ≺ ... ≺ Pn. Similarly, for Q, we have both value ordering and greatness ordering. The value ordering for Q is <Q, <> = Q1 < Q2 < ... < Qm. The greatness ordering for Q is <Q, ≺> = Q1 ≺ Q2 ≺ ... ≺ Qm. Where "X < Y" is "the value of X is less than the value of Y" and "X ≺ Y" is "X is less great than Y". Now, consider two beings, A and B, who exemplify both P and Q to varying degrees. Being A exemplifies P7 and Q12, while entity B exemplifies P12 and Q7. Of the entities A and B, which is greater? To answer that question, we need to look at the product space: PxQ. That's the set of all possible combinations of values of P and Q. So, the entity A, on PxQ, corresponds with point (P7, Q12), and, likewise, B corresponds with point (P12, Q7). Even with the objective ranking, it's not possible to give an objective answer. The product ordering on PxQ only gives a partial ordering, and it's one such that there is no answer as to which of A and B is the greater being [(A ≺ B ) iff ((P(A) ≺ P(B)) and (Q(A) ≺ Q(B)))]. So, the only way to compare them is if one entity is greater in both properties than the other entity. That makes tons of entities not directly comparable. Each added GMP makes more entities incomparable. If we have three GMP, than one entity is greater than another only if it is greater in terms of all three GMP. At this point, you might be wondering, "So? GMP has the property value corresponding to the greatest greatness for all properties. It's (Pn, Qm).". And, if we only had independent properties to deal with, you'd have a point. I introduced independent properties first, so you could see that this is a problem with *ALL* GMP. Not all, GMP, however, are independent. The values of some GMP are linked to the value of other GMP. Sometimes, the more one GMP is exemplified, the less another is. If we then move on to great-making properties such that they aren't independent, but are rather somewhat inversely related (such as moral goodness and potence), then you can't max out the product ordering, since raising one property lowers the other. They come in pairs: (P1, Qm), (P2, Qm-1), ... , (Pn-1, Q2), (Pn, Q1) There is no place in this space of property pairs where one entity is greater than another in all properties. Thus, when we introduce inversely related GMP, we go from losing some ordering to losing all ordering. There is no objective ordering such that a GPB exists.

I take it you didn't actually read the OP. It's generally good practice to do that before posting in its thread.

In linguistics, a cognates are words two different languages that sound the same and have the same meaning. English "beer" and German "Bier" are cognates. Similarly, false cognates sound the same, but have vastly different meanings. English "gift" and German "Gift" are false cognates, as an English gift is something you get someone you like and the German Gift is something you give someone you want to die, namely poison. In CS, different languages have similar ideas with similar names. Floats, ints, and doubles are everywhere. I'm interested in seeing your favorite examples false cognates in programming languages. My favorite is the for loop. Python's for loop is nothing like the rest of the for loops. Python's for loop iterates over an iterable while letting the program do stuff with the current member for each iteration. The rest of them initialize a variable, then let the program do stuff with the variable, then increment/decrement the variable. That goes on until the cessation condition is met. Python: for member in iterable: stuff(member) C++: for(initialize variable; cessation condition; increment/decrement){ stuff(variable);} For python to mimic the other for loops, it would need a while loop. def cpp_for(initialization, condition, incrementation): i = initialization while(condition): stuff(i) i += 1 if incrementation == 'increment' else i -= 1 What's your favorite example?

80 = 0.25x y = 0.75x Solve for y.

Probably more of a fuzzy gradient than a sharp line, but that's the idea.

That's kind of the target of the thread: when should we care?

But anticipation wasn't your criterion; explicitly being coded was.

Facebook's AI made its own language--an act for which it was not programmed. As did Google Translate. Would deactivating either of these be tantamount to murder?

What features would be required in an AI for us to include it in our moral sphere of consideration? Facebook just shut down an AI. With what minimum features of the AI would that be immoral?

Since it's clear that the OP is not returning in time for the homework to be submitted, the answer is "input 1 AND NOT input 2".

! Moderator Note We don't give homework answers, but we help you figure out the answer on your own. You can always start by showing us what you've tried so far. Topic moved to Homework Help. x 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 That's an odd table, so we know it's not a single gate. not: x 0 1 1 0 or: x 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 xor: x 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 nor: x 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 and: x 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 nand: x 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 Which combinations of these gates have you tried? Hint: It's only two gates.

That's usually when we close them.

Surprisingly, Jebediah Kermin survived all of my rockets so far. I still haven't looked at any tutorials, but I think I will soon. I'm playing through the career mode before I go into sandbox mode.

...Kerbal Space Program is half off on the Steam Summer Sale. I just got it. I know that Scott Manly is one of the best tutorial sources for it on YouTube. Anybody have other suggestions?

Too bad there isn't a giant ball of plasma bathing the Earth in usable energy.

What makes you think that? Why do you think that? Again, shooting at the government is the only crime detailed in the Constitution and the stated purpose of the second amendment is to make the prosecution of the crime run smoothly. How do you get that a purpose of the amendment is to condone said crime?

Why would that imply life after death? Walk us through your thought process.