Strange

As someone who has spent decades as a professional communicator, I would say you are almost certainly wrong about this. Perhaps you should carry on anyway. Further explanation might clarify any confusion about your initial assertions. It is very clear that representations and the thing represented are different. And that the relationship is arbitrary. I am not sure that is true. But that is another (huge) area of philosophical debate that would probably just be a distraction. Given the ill-defined, vague and changing nature of each of the [latex]x_i[/latex] terms in your equation, it is not clear that this is a useful exercise. I can't currently see that it does anything more than translating the original sentence into another natural language would. Hopefully, your further explanations will clarify this point. You also seem to be ignoring grammar. You appear to be only considering the meanings (representations) of the symbols, not their relationship to one another. For example, there is a big difference between "man bites dog" and "dog bites man" and "dog bit man". And even more so between "let's eat, Grandma" and "let's eat Grandma". How does your mathematical representation handle these? There are other complexities such as context, the relationship between the speaker and the listener, where the utterance is made, etc. And then there are the issues of the implied meaning versus the literal meaning. For example, if someone gives you a cup of coffee and you say, "Do you have any sugar?" then you are probably not asking about whether they are in possession of sucrose or not. You are (politely) requesting that they give you some. (Or, more topically, if your boss says, "I hope you will drop this inquiry" then that is not just a vague hope, it is a pretty direct order.) No more so than the fact that any language can be translated into any other. But there are difficulties in converting spoken language to a written form. For example, these forms do not easily convey tone of voice, facial expressions, body language, etc. This is why some jokes fail to work, or are seriously misunderstood, on the Internet. You can also lose the ability to make jokes involving homophones that are spelled differently. These problems seem to apply equally to your proposed mathematical representation. (Which is why, despite the idea being centuries old, no one has achieved it.) I look forward to hearing more of your thought. I haven't yet seen anything that justifies your rather grandiose claims. (I should say, in case you are not familiar with his work, that this is from a physicist.)

Well, you are mixing up the concepts of validity and soundness, but you are basically correct here. Unfortunately, you are not applying those standards to your own opinions. For example, you appear to dismiss the philosophy of idealism as wrong with no logical argument at all.

Remind? Or explain?

And (at the risk of drifting further off topic) it is worth noting that the inability to mate, as a species definition, does not mean only a biological inability, but could be due to geographical separation or other factors (for example, it has been suggested, not entirely seriously, that Great Danes and Chihuahuas could be considered separate species).

Turns out it is a complete myth: https://www.nypl.org/blog/2013/07/02/name-changes-ellis-island http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/ellis-island-isnt-blame-your-familys-name-change-180953832/

I am not sure what you read or watched, but I have read something similar but only as an explanation of what it would mean for two black holes to be entangled (not as a practical way of achieving that). And the point of that explanation was to introduce the idea that there appears to be a connection between entanglement and the (hypothetical) wormholes connecting pairs of black holes. Also known as EP=EPR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER%3DEPR

Indeed. So I'm not sure about John's comment. There were valve-based computers and so it is possible that Elite Engineer has read something about them. Thanks for that.

I don't think that is true. Some theories are falsified, but very few. Phlogiston is one of the few examples I can think of. Oh, and the steady state universe (that's quite a big one, I guess). And, ... ummm...

That's easy: have yourself frozen with the condition that you are woken after she is.

Really? http://xkcd.com/285/

It is one inadequate to you. As you will never be willing to admit you are wrong, see where your errors lie, and actually learn anything then none will ever able t provide an argument that you find adequate. Initially, I thought this was just a mistake or a misunderstanding or how rational thought works. As you keep repeating it, despite multiple explanations as to why it is wrong, I can only assume you are now deliberately lying. That is rather pathetic. Oh well, at least you have a sense of humour.

I have read stories of names being Anglicised (or, at least, corrupted) because immigration officials could pronounce/spell the original form. I don't know how much truth there is in this, though. If it happened, it may have been more common in the past (e.g. less familiarity with foreign names, changing attitudes to how new arrivals are treated). Are you sure they haven't? The very fact of transliterating the names from Hebrew to the Latin alphabet, could be considered a form of Anglicisation. The first name that occurred to me was Goldwyn (the film producer). Don't know why. He was born Gelbfisz. I just looked him up, and the reason for his name change is interesting (and perhaps unusual). Initially, he Anglicised his name as Goldfish but then... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Goldwyn#Goldwyn_Pictures

The question is very confused / confusing. Both vacuum tube / valve and transistor circuits can be (and are) driven directly from a DC source such as a battery. Valves requires at least two voltages a low one to drive the heaters (as mentioned) and a higher voltage for the actual signals being amplified (or whatever). The heater voltage was typically around 6 or 12 V and could be AC or DC. So if the system is powered from the mains(*) then the heaters could be powered by a simple step down transformer. A transformer, rectifier and filter would be needed to generate the right high-tension supply for the electronics. Or, all of them could be supplied from a battery. Transistor circuits can run from a single supply voltage. For old TTL integrated circuits this was normally 5V (and had to be DC). With the adoption of CMOS gates, this was reduced to 3.3 or 2.5V to allow higher speed (and reduce power consumption). Modern ICs, such as microprocessors, use a number of different voltages internally. For example, 3.3V at the interfaces for compatibility with other devices but much lower voltages internally to allow for smaller devices and therefore higher speed operation. (*) Is "mains" a UK-only term for the power from the wall outlet? Is there a US equivalent?

I don't see a hierarchy. At best there is a (partially) directed graph. You can choose different organisms to be on "top" depending on your criteria. If there were a hierarchy, I see no need (or likelihood) for it to extend infinitely in both directions, so the question "who is above" (or below) is not necessarily meaningful.

Sigh. Stop repeating that without thinking about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum#Criticisms And you certainly don't know for sure that your fingers exist. They could be a product of your imagination. (As could the entire universe, including the embers of this forum.)

And that is why there was no point asking what you mean. The "explanation" makes no more sense than the original sentence. Maybe you should try running what you want to say through Google Translate. It might make more sense. (It can't make any less.)

Can't argue with that - at least there is no evidence against it.

Nonsense.

No. The larger mass had a diameter of about 200 km. So you seem to be out by a factor of 1,000. No! I have just had another look at the parameter estimation paper but that just confused me. Maybe you can make more sense of it! https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.03840

It doesn't. The first signal detected in 2015 was thought to be from a pair of black holes where the orbital axis was nearly along the line of site (with about 30° if I remember correctly). A stronger signal would have been detected if the system had been "edge on".

No assumptions are made. The interaction is modelled to find the form that the gravitational waves take. The waves are strongest in the (equatorial) plane of the orbits and weakest in the direction of the axis of the orbits. (This may complicated slightly by the spin of the black holes as I think it depends on the total angular momentum of the system, not just the axis of the orbits.) (OK. A few assumptions are made in the analysis: that GR is correct, is the main one. Also that the orbits are nearly circular.)

It is a conclusion from a process of rational thought (you know, philosophy). As already noted, there are many flaws with this simplistic argument. (See the Wikipedia page for a summary of the more obvious problems.) Well, thank you for finally answering this question. Why, exactly, do you dismiss solipsism as "unsound speculation"? It is a problem that has challenged philosophers for thousands of years. And yet you are able to simply dismiss it. So things you agree with are sound and things you disagree with are unsound? Is that correct? Or, can you tell us how anyone can determine what is sound or unsound ? I don't disagree with that. But... (1) you do not seem able to do this and (2) this does not mean that philosophy is always correct, just that it (should) always be a rational and logical process of analysis. But you seem to be unaware of the basics of logic. Also logic is only half the equation. You need to also consider the truth or otherwise of the initial premises. Have you read about the difference between valid and sound arguments yet? http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundness

Although, because the falling observer has moved since the light was emitted and bounced back, they will see the light blue shifted (and the clock ticking faster). There will also be a Doppler effect.

I am not surprised. I would not be surprised if the only way to know is to run a massive simulation on a supercomputer.

This article addresses a specific challenge to the LIGO results, but also answers some of tar's questions. Particularly, the question: "why not look at the raw data instead of using models or templates?" Well, it turns out they do. I had missed that when looking at the results before. http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2017/06/18/a-response-to-on-the-time-lags-of-the-ligo-signals-guest-post/