studiot

Caution Marine compasses are mounted on gimbal bearings, which although robust are very finely balanced. Adding weights to this can easily unbalance the mechanism, leading to a systematic bias error in the compass.

Progress. +1 Now how about responding to my serious question on paradoxes? Two members have now raised objections to the gazelle / lion construct. I can offer a resolution to the spear / shield construct Ancient lore and literature is littererd (pun intended) with clever stories like this, for instance the Irish strong man who couldn't be killed indoors or out. The most popular 'paradox' of this type is the what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object ? This has its resolution in Newton's third Law and Mathematics.

That assumes your so called paradox of the spear and shield is a paradox. Again I see no paradox. Please explain it to me.

Well this is using non standard definitions for arithmetic and number systems so you need to start with definitions of you symbols and proofs of the properties of the entities you invoke to be able to 'proove' anything. I also asked about your definition of bijection? Why did you not take the opportunity to answer when you had more than 20 minutes logged on here after your last post?

The moment you stop believing that Darwin is regarded as some sort of scientific god, and therefore one has to believe or accept everything he wrote as scientific gospel, will be the moment you will be able to make progress.

Accomodating such questions is one of the reasons that the distinction between countable and uncountable infinities was introduced. You need to learn the distinction.

Perhaps it would help if Edgard told us what he understands Bijection to mean That is what definition of bijection are you using. So when you match some apparant inconsistency against this definition, where exactly do they conflict?

I see no paradox. Watch one of the many excellent Nature programmes available. You will see the both pack hunters and lone hunters prey on the weak members of the target flock. They rarely catch a 'perfect' specimen.

What wouldn't work? You guessed what would happen if you put a light source inside a reflective globe and asked if you were right. We largely agreed with you. But there didn't seem to be any purpose to the contraption.

Gosh send him and his axe over here. We have been collecting outdated regulations for hundreds of years longer than you lot over there. The one I like best is the requirement for every London Taxi to carry a bale of hay in their boot (trunk to you) for their horse.

Redo-Backup is the free software to use. https://www.intowindows.com/how-to-use-redo-backup-and-recovery/

That about says all that needs to be said. It is clear that there is only one poster expounding inflexible views, regardless of anything anyone else says. I thought it all sounded familiar. Thank you for preventing any further waste of my time. +1

Reg You have pitted direct quotes from one member against those of another using misrepresentation of the words of a third member. Polysemy? I give and gave you credit for stating your definition of mainstream. But you have no basis whatsoever for asserting that 'everyone else' uses this definition. In fact I specifically ruled out any polysemy by the words "in this context" Since you wish to claim that everybody else uses your definition (quite reasonable in some very limited contexts) here is my version. By far the greatest majority of the activities of scientists is in the application of existing Science, not the search for new Science. As such I would offer mainstream to represent the major activity of Science. Application is, by definition, using science for something we want to work and be successful. As an example, since you are fond of these, consider the motor car. There is an existing world land speed record. New Science would be trying to build a car to exceed this speed. But this would be one single solitary car. Set that against the output of the world car manufacturing industry building mainstream cars, using mainstream Science. Turning the the other member statement you placed in opposition brings us to the meaning of "all the time" It may have been an unfortunate use of words fo those who can only take pedantically literally what others say. I did not, anymore than when I use the phrase "I am forever making typing errors" do I mean literally that every word I type is in error or that I will live forever or that I am doing nothing else with my time. You use literary hyperbole liberally and I take Phi's words in the same vain. Most of the activity of Scientists is, as I already mentioned, spent performing activity where it is undersirable to challenge what is known to work. But some of it is spent on new Science. For instance I am reading an interesting book about the history of Earth interior geophysics. In the last two decades our knowledge and understanding of the interior of the Earth has been turned on its head at least 3 times. Perovskite, post perovskite and other matters. Fascinating.

I find that my views on social matters are very closely aligned to those expressed by PhiforAll. Since I know quite alot about the design, building and maintenance (and sadly the inquisition when they fail) of bridges I will continue the example. Others have suggested that you go to a contractor and ask them to design and build a bridge across so and so obstruction. So what standards will be applied? How wide will the lanes be? What loading will the bridge be designed for? What impact protection will be provided? If the bridge is an underbridge, what headroom will be provided? You get the drift of the questions.

Hobson was the grandaddy of them all. My 3rd Ed Vol 1 is dated 1927 and my 2nd ed Vol2 is dated 1926 The Theory of Functions of a Real Variable and the Theory of Fourier Series Vols 1 and 2 E W Hobson Cambridge University Press. Ferrar was a contemporary of / overlapped with Hardy at Oxford He wrote a number of thoughtful analysis textbooks including Differential Calculus Integral Calculus A Textbook of Convergence All Oxford University Press

I indeed meant public and private, which largely translates to left v right on the political spectrum. But note my comment about which 'public' . Local v national. It's neither simple nor easy. What about subsidies? Some are open, some are hidden. Yes private outfits have the profit motive to operate. But should they be allowed to walk away from unprofitable contracts they have bid for and won? Yes they will try to arrange and promote structures, situations and circumstances where they can earn a profit. Drug companies will close factories for profitability reasons, even if some patients die as their source of medicine dries up. Is this equitable?

Yes it is and a result of the despicable "soak the unsuspecting tourist" policy. If a tourist walked into a railway station and bought a single to us or from us to London they would pay over £80.

Throught my life I've watched the conflict between those who want private ownership and operation and state ownership and operation. Both sides want it all. Neither will contemplate a society where some roads (for example) are private and some are state. That is anathema to them. Furthermore there is a question of what is state ownership. In the past, throughout this green and pleasant land, local coucils used local money to obtain, build or whatever, facilities for their locality. This included water supply, gas supply electricity supply, telephone and so on. In many cases the local council issued bonds to raise the money. These bonds were well regarded. Subsequent right wing governments grabbed these assests for themselves and eventually sold them off as though the national government actually owned them. Furthemore the same national governments have now prevented the issuing of local authority bonds (as they were called) for several decades. But who wants to go to the North? The train ticket from Paddington to the SouthWest cost £12. Further I must apologise for an earlier mistake. The plane price should have been in euros.

I am expecting someone from Hamburg today. Her plane was 4 hours 10 minutes late. But then the Ryanair fare was only £35 return.

Yes I was offering the simplest into that I know Here is the version from Abbot. Taeto have you see Either Ferrar or Hobson on this subject?

How is this an appropriate response to my comment? I actually gave an example of where you are misusing terminology Clearly misusing the term finite difference, which is a term concerning real numbers. I think 113 meant 'non zero difference' here. Do you know what a finite difference is? I'm sorry you are so contemptuous of books, Here is an example modern definition of a derivative from the modern book by Kantarovich, showing the ideas I have suggested and you appear to have rejected.

... to which Phi for All responded... I'll probably not win any friends by saying this, but I'd say Sam is, on this point at least, largely right, and Phi largely wrong -- with no disrespect intended to any of our members. Before you can build an argument based on these quotes you have to agree the meaning of the word mainstream in this context. By your own admission, another member introduced the word. So clearly according to the rules of proper debate and argument the onus is upon you to demonstrate that your definition coincides with that of Sam Cogar. That there is more than one possible interpretation of Sam's utterance is demonstrated by the fact that I have a different definition (and therefore understanding of what he said) for yourself. Equally I have a different understanding of PhisforAll's utterance from the one you are portraying. In both cases I may be right or wrong as to my understanding, as may you. So over to you to demonstrate that you have chosen the correct interpretations of the words.

Gosh Reg, the Internet has provided a big boost for the challenging of Science. What do you think of this?

Actually they do have a meaning. For instance movement along lines of constant volume involve zero work in the First Law of Thermodynamics. But it is best not to push the analogy of least mechanical work lines in mechancal theory (geodesics) and zero work lines in Thermo too far. The point is that both are plots or graphs of properties of interest. And this connection is geometric. But there is no guarantee of direct correspondence between the properties.

Only if you use the more advanced or exact VdW equation.