I'm right there with you. I never thought it was too confusing. Though i'm sure i missed a few mindblowing tidbits.Tommeh Brownleh said:
Stop scrolling. Click here. Everybody look what's goin' down.
- Thread starter ChuQue37
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Uhm... I felt really satisfied once. Beyond Hollywood satisfied where the man comes home and beams at his wife and his fresh oxo dinner. Just really satisfied.
I remember it was a rising feeling, not like some feelings that come in waves or pangs or seem to be shaken out of you like coins from a piggy bank, it was like a lump in your throat in your belly and it was warm and it was good. I liked it but I wouldn't want it to happen again, it was really magnificant but I was all in all truly satisfied, I was brimful of happiness and satisfied with satisfacation, I couldn't have wanted more happiness and I still dont.
I remember it was a rising feeling, not like some feelings that come in waves or pangs or seem to be shaken out of you like coins from a piggy bank, it was like a lump in your throat in your belly and it was warm and it was good. I liked it but I wouldn't want it to happen again, it was really magnificant but I was all in all truly satisfied, I was brimful of happiness and satisfied with satisfacation, I couldn't have wanted more happiness and I still dont.
If you have the time, go onto youtube and watch/listen to a preformance of Mahler's 8th symphony.
Or, if you only want to stay for 10 minutes, watch/listen to Krystan Zimmerman's preformance of Chopin's Ballade No. 1.
Both are amazing pieces of music.
Or, if you only want to stay for 10 minutes, watch/listen to Krystan Zimmerman's preformance of Chopin's Ballade No. 1.
Both are amazing pieces of music.
To date, i'm unaware of anyone proving, beyond any doubt, it ever actually happened. That's why it's still called the "Big Bang THEORY", because it is still a THEORY.ImprovizoR said:
And saying that we can only see 4% of our universe implies that we know 100% of our universe (and i'm pretty sure we don't). Otherwise, how would we know what 4% of it is?
Interestingly, the funny thing about your post was that you proved zehydra right.
'Acquire me an orange peel and a female aardvark; I wish to slap Henry across the ears with them for 16 hours, and I shall charge him tuppence for the inconvienience.'
I enjoy the ancient art of making up sentences that have never been said before.
I enjoy the ancient art of making up sentences that have never been said before.
Nobody cares. They don't care if you live. They don't care if you die. They don't care who you kill. Just as long as them and their own survive nothing else matters. Thats the way everyone everywhere is the only differance between people is who they consider their own. Thats why taking hostages never works, because somebody somewhere is willing to sacrifice those hostages in order to be sure that the criminal never does this again. This is why I can't stand environmentalists and spokesmen for other problems the world over. I don't care about those problems, if I did I would be over there doing something instead I'm sitting at my computer. I just can't stand that kind of activism that is so hypocritical where people claim to care about an issue yet do nothing to aid or help it. If they really cared they would be over there doing something instead they are sitting on their couches claiming that they care while they relax in their livingroom. So yes I am a terrible person, but at least I'm honest which is more than I can say about most people on the internet.
A story.
It was raining shards of glass that day.
A young man sat quietly alone at a bus stop beneath the overhang, listening to the melodious chime of glass landing on the ground. He checked his wristwatch and returned back to his thoughts. As he looked both ways for any sign of the bus, his eyes were drawn to an old man with a walrus mustache that eclipsed his mouth in a bowler hat. The old man's umbrella sent the many particles of shimmering, sparkling glass flying in all directions. He reached the bus stop and stepped beneath the overhang, closing his umbrella and nodding in recognition to the young man, who returned the favor.
The old man sat and placed both hands on his umbrella, holding it like a cane and tapping it on the ground in short bursts of threes. Tap tap tap.
"Dreadful weather we're having today, hm?" The old man queried to the young man, his mustache quietly bristling with every word.
The young man turned to him. "Hm? Oh. Uh, yeah. Yeah, it's pretty bad out there today." He returned his gaze and thoughts to the glass precipitation.
"Hm. Yes. Quite." Tap tap tap.
The sprinkling of glass filled the air again.
"So," again, the old man spoke, "Why are you here?"
The young man looked him in the eyes. "Um, just waiting for the bus, I guess." He raised an eyebrow. "Why are you here?"
"Oh!" He seemed surprised. "Oh, much of the same, I'm afraid." Tap tap tap.
"You do know," Came the old man again, "That there is no road here, don't you?"
He pointed to the field of grass before them being sprinkled with glass.
"Yeah, well," The young man shifted, "The schedule says that the bus will come at 35:62 o'clock and it is now?" He checked his watch. "35:70. So the bus will probably come eight minutes ago."
"Ah, yes. Hm." Tap tap tap.
"Do you," The old man pointed his umbrella at the young man, "Have an umbrella?"
"Um, no, no." he pulled up his hood. "I'm fine. As long as I got my hood."
"Hm." Tap tap tap.
Silence.
Silence and waiting.
Silence and waiting and raining glass.
The young man looked up and smiled. "Hey, looks like the bus is here."
The old man's eyes widened. "Ah, yes," he said, straining to get to his feet, "It seems as though we-"
The bus plowed into the bus stop killing the two instantly.
I wrote this a little while ago. I think you can see why I never sent it to any literary sites or things like that.
Too short and doesn't make a lick of sense.
But you gotta admit, it's original.
It was raining shards of glass that day.
A young man sat quietly alone at a bus stop beneath the overhang, listening to the melodious chime of glass landing on the ground. He checked his wristwatch and returned back to his thoughts. As he looked both ways for any sign of the bus, his eyes were drawn to an old man with a walrus mustache that eclipsed his mouth in a bowler hat. The old man's umbrella sent the many particles of shimmering, sparkling glass flying in all directions. He reached the bus stop and stepped beneath the overhang, closing his umbrella and nodding in recognition to the young man, who returned the favor.
The old man sat and placed both hands on his umbrella, holding it like a cane and tapping it on the ground in short bursts of threes. Tap tap tap.
"Dreadful weather we're having today, hm?" The old man queried to the young man, his mustache quietly bristling with every word.
The young man turned to him. "Hm? Oh. Uh, yeah. Yeah, it's pretty bad out there today." He returned his gaze and thoughts to the glass precipitation.
"Hm. Yes. Quite." Tap tap tap.
The sprinkling of glass filled the air again.
"So," again, the old man spoke, "Why are you here?"
The young man looked him in the eyes. "Um, just waiting for the bus, I guess." He raised an eyebrow. "Why are you here?"
"Oh!" He seemed surprised. "Oh, much of the same, I'm afraid." Tap tap tap.
"You do know," Came the old man again, "That there is no road here, don't you?"
He pointed to the field of grass before them being sprinkled with glass.
"Yeah, well," The young man shifted, "The schedule says that the bus will come at 35:62 o'clock and it is now?" He checked his watch. "35:70. So the bus will probably come eight minutes ago."
"Ah, yes. Hm." Tap tap tap.
"Do you," The old man pointed his umbrella at the young man, "Have an umbrella?"
"Um, no, no." he pulled up his hood. "I'm fine. As long as I got my hood."
"Hm." Tap tap tap.
Silence.
Silence and waiting.
Silence and waiting and raining glass.
The young man looked up and smiled. "Hey, looks like the bus is here."
The old man's eyes widened. "Ah, yes," he said, straining to get to his feet, "It seems as though we-"
The bus plowed into the bus stop killing the two instantly.
I wrote this a little while ago. I think you can see why I never sent it to any literary sites or things like that.
Too short and doesn't make a lick of sense.
But you gotta admit, it's original.
Everything after that sort of blends together like ink on wet paper. I wish I could describe it with any kind of clarity. I wish I could tell you she tasted like strawberries and cyanide; that her mulberry lips yielded only slightly against the intractable line of her cannibal white teeth. But I can't say for certain.
All I know was that I woke in a gutter; ashen, bloodied, with a mouthful of venom and the indisputable knowledge that the Devil took her tea with two sugars.
All I know was that I woke in a gutter; ashen, bloodied, with a mouthful of venom and the indisputable knowledge that the Devil took her tea with two sugars.
In about 5 million years the Earth will be engulfed and disintegrated by the Sun when it becomes a Red Dwarf. Unless a comet, aliens, gamma ray burst or we humans destroy it first.
AvroLancaster said:
"On to the good stuff. Governments don't need to be controlled, but any objective look at history shows that governments will eventually start exploiting their people"
I'd say that a truly objective view on history probably wouldn't make moral judgements such as what constitutes exploitation, however, I'd say in long-form human history we basically have only a few epochs, first a nomadic paleolithic era, a communal-farming neolithic era, thousands of years of strife, the enlightenment and modern era. In every era there has been what I would consider, rather defensibly I'd presume, near total exploitation of populace by their governments, every era except the first that is. Could you tell me, where this historical case you are referencing comes from? I do not know of a single government that started off unexploitative that gradually moved towards exploitation (before you reference Fascism, those were not gradual!). A handful of countries with their modern democracies exist in a state of what I would consider to be the least exploitative era of the existence of man since paleolithic times. People are still exploited in these countries, but less by their governments and more by the corrupting hand of private enterprise. I do not disagree with you that it is a logical next step that a good government given the power to exploit its people may over a very long period of time try to, I just think that the government, although it should be carefully watched, does not represent an omnipotent force that wishes to control us, again, at least not Western Democracy anyway.
"I was a little unclear it seems. I didn't mean to imply that the McDonald's/Box scenario is... the fault of the person involved... I know people who made enough of a living on minimum wage to eventually get an education and good job."
Then I inferred this in error. Nevertheless it leads into a point I'd like to make; I believe that an individual who makes terrible decisions should not be denied the same freedom as an individual who makes the most calm, level-headed, well thought out, logically sound, and rational decisions. I don't think that this is a stance that is or should be controversial. Also, minimum wage is a program that does protect the freedom of an individual, when tied to a cost of living - either speculative or real, it may not provide an individual with a very satisfying or wealthy life, but it does protect them from being forced into wage-slaving by private enterprise, it preserves freedom.
"On a slightly less relevant, but very important(IMO) note: Talent has nothing to do with opportunity. Talent is mostly made up of practice anyway..."
I would respectfully disagree with you on this point. However much I would like to believe that natural talent is an illusion, the facts, both genetic and sociological, do not support this belief. It is true that hard work may trump talent, but the hard work of the untalented will always be trumped by the hard work of the talented. Whatever the case though, I feel that this has been debated far more in-depthly, and far more convincingly on both sides, by men of far greater stature than both of us combined and represents the so called struggle between "nature and nurture" within the various scientific institutions and publications of the world and I am willing to leave it at that.
"Another tangent: I'm against universal healthcare. I think it's stupid simply because federal level governments are horribly inefficient and corrupt..."
I will vehemently disagree with you on this point Spartan. I am Canadian, and I have seen our Health Care system wonderfully and publicly managed on a single-payer government monopoly (for the most part) model for my entire life, and I have seen it run only slightly less than perfectly given the resources at hand and the sparseness of our population. I will give you an example. Until recently wait times for diagnostic scanning tests in Canada were bordering on the insane, but with proper investment 6 years ago our government made the proper expansions and now they are still what some would consider unacceptably high, but are now within internationally accepted ranges. The Canadian Government, in coordination with the Provinces acted in a way that was timely, rational, compassionate and guaranteed an improved quality of life for Canadians, and a strengthened social safety net for years to come. I wouldn't call that stupid, horribly inefficient or corrupt - even in jest!
"We would be much better off if we took steps to reduce the cost of healthcare. it has skyrocketed in the past 30-40 years..."
The skyrocketing cost of health care, if we are to use that term, is related to advances in technology in most Western countries. It is unavoidable and requires a careful compromise that is difficult and unpalatable even amongst ethicists - the just allocation of scarce resources. In the USA costs are inflated by another factor as well as the rising cost of new technology - the HMO. It represents a middleman not seen in countries with Universal Health Care, one that robs the consumer and inflates the cost of doing business. They provide no necessary service and reap obscene profits. Canada spends the least out of any Western country on health care per capita - and we have the best results according to the medical evidence. We have no HMOs.
"mostly because of ludicrous malpractice lawsuits and over-regulation..."
Over-regulation? I fail to see that. I think that the system south of the border may appear to be only over-regulated as a symptom of an unsustainable system. As long as there is a businessman in between the patient and their doctor, costs will inflate and people will suffer. A single-payer system with a government monopoly is not the only viable option, but it is a good one. It is one where every doctor is a government employee and the standards of their practice are not standards of business, but standards of ethics. Imagine a system where no doctor sets their own prices. In Canada a family doctor starts at $200,000 a year salary, they end their practice making $250,000 per year unless they also do other things. Doctors don't collect Ferraris here while children go unvaccinated. Remove the business aspect of medicine and you remove much of the cost of doing said business.
As for the frivolous lawsuits, I believe that this represents a much deeper problem than can be answered by health care reform. However, imagine a system where one does not need to sue to keep both their thumbs after an accident or surgical mistake - one where no insurance company makes this necessary or attractive - and I imagine you would have solved half the problem right there.
"Ur last 3 paragraphs are a little unclear to me in my current state, so feel free to point out if you think i misunderstood you."
No problem
"Point of Fact: I would consider myself a reform liberal as well(well, technically I consider myself an independent..."
I really feel I need to talk to you more to understand this position. I mean private messaging or something. I really think I might be misunderstanding American terminology and would like to inform myself of it. I always imagined "Independent" as a lack of affiliation with or support for any particular political party. It seems that you are using this word to mean a completely different thing though - you are using it to denote a political philosophy (unless I am mistaken). I would really like to discuss this with you further to fully grasp the American meaning of this word.
"To take an extreme example that my philosophy professor used in my class last semester: If the government makes it illegal for one man to punch another in the face for no reason, is that government protecting a person's right to not get punched in the face, or infringing a person's right to punch someone in the face?""
That's it though, all Liberal Democracies (a distinction that is identical to my previous use of "Western" but more precise) must make a compromise in such situations. This compromise is where opinions differ, but usually it will favour those who have less power in any given conflict. I will not, nor could I ever hope to, provide judgement on every single compromise, but this will lead into my next point.
"Like I said, it's a very moral statement, "your freedom ends where mine begins. Mine ends where yours begins," but it is functionally useless, because it does nothing to define that line in any real sense, because protecting someone from another person is inherently taking away the other person's right to harm them."
You've hit the nail on the head! It is a moral. It is a guiding principle behind the law- but not the law itself. It is a similar maxim as "do onto others as you would have them do onto you" in that it advocates no specific action, it defines no specific rules, and yet it can immediately be understood for what it is - a philosophy that informs the law. As I said before, the law, at least through a (reform?) liberal viewpoint anyway, is a series of compromises between individuals informed by this one guiding principle. Any good law is written in this context, any good government is guided by it, and the bad counterparts of both are devoid of it.
"Do you unilaterally protect the unborn child's right to life, or do you protect the mother's right to decide the fate of her own body? Or let's talk about many penal codes which regulate how high your grass can grow."
This is totally personal opinion here, but I think the more pressing issue in the abortion debate is can we classify the unborn as persons? If so then abortion is obviously wrong; if not then it is as obviously benign an action as lancing a cyst and it would be tyrannical to deny a woman the right to such a procedure. There is no middle ground. Also, I consider items as ephemeral and speculative as property value to be such a poor justification for removing someone's rights that I can never see it to be fair. I should be able to paint my garage door plaid if I want to!
But from this we have healthy debate. From Liberalism every contentious issue is seen as an issue of compromise between two sides informed by that one guiding principle. What we do not have is invocations of right or wrong, and we certainly do not have personality politics or people's best guesses as to what God's opinion on a subject is.
I feel the rest of your on-topic post is an affirmation of what I have now laid before you. Except I see this as evidence that Reform Liberalism isn't just an intelligent or informed choice as a political philosophy - it is the only rational one.
"Finally, you don't come off as confrontational at all, and I apologize if I do. If I attack flaws in ur logic, it's not because i think that you're wrong, but because i think that every philosophy has some flaws in it, and the only way we can fix that is by thinking about it."
In all honesty I didn't think I did either, but I was aware that it could be a possibility. I preemptively made that statement to make sure as to not stifle the seed of a debate that was so wonderfully sprouting forth. Also, I'm Canadian.
"As for us already working out who will watch the watchers, I think you would be surprised. In my opinion, the US government is already something of a circus to create the illusion of an illusion of choice(God that's confusing, i will try to clarify tomorrow if you want) rather than a true meaningful representational government, and i think this happened because our founding fathers chose the wrong people to watch the watchers. Still, It has been a pretty damn good compromise, and will continue to be for a long time yet to come."
I would like an explanation. I also agree with you. The Jeffersonian system has major flaws - but so does the Westminster system! The difference is that in the Westminster system the flaws are anticipated and there is a system in place to lessen their effect - largely due to the age of the system and the trial and error that has gone on for centuries, not some enlightened status. The major problem with the Jeffersonian system is that it incorrectly selects its enemies. To Jefferson (and others), the major enemy of democracy was the rise of a tyrant, probably from the military who would form out of their bureaucratic framework an administrative dictatorship or an empire (they were looking back at Julius Caesar). What Jefferson et al could not foresee was that in the American system people would organise into self-interested and powerful groups who would use their power to lobby the government. These groups have no interest in real political power, just making things better for their members often at the cost of the rest of society. The American Founders anticipated a Caesar or Napoleon (who came afterwards, whatever) when the real enemy of the system were the merchants and Barons of industry. The difference is that Caesar wants to take over the system and destroy it, the Barons just want a cut of the action, and so the system is corrupted by them as a result.
Also, this is our contribution to this thread! How original is a calm, respectful political debate that didn't mention Hitler and leads to mutual enlightenment for all involved amirite?[/quote]
Ok, I'm going to try to keep my response brief to avoid cluttering the forum because I think messages would probably work better at this point with how long and involved our responses are becoming.
I do believe that natural talent exists, but I wouldn't consider to have anything to do with equal opportunity. It's ability to pursue opportunity, not opportunity itself, and I don't believe we should interfere with that. The only way you can give someone who is not talented, the same chance to be X as someone who is, is to put someone who is worse at the job in the position, and that would be bad for society as a whole. So long as they have enough opportunity to work hard at what they choose to do, then it's their choice over whether or not they choose to do so. I wouldn't want an engineer who was bad at math to design my airplane, but one who had had to work his/her butt off to learn math would probably do a better job than someone who math came easy to, and definitely wouldn't do any worse a job.
Firstly, I meant to say feared, not controlled, but that doesn't really have much of an impact on what you said. There are many cases where representative governments devolved into dictatorships gradually. Not gradually in historical terms, but gradual in human terms. It's the only way that a representative government can devolve into a dictatorship, slowly enough that the people don't realize where the steps are going until it's too late to change it. Rome is the big example. If my recollection of history class is correct, Napoleon became a dictator in what was originally a representational government, so there's another. Nazi Germany, if I remember correctly, started as a representational government and in a couple of years this was more of an illusion than the true reality of government.
Needless to say, my recollection of history is spotty, so I'm going to stick with the Rome example because it's the one I remember best. Rome's decline to an empire as opposed to a republic was very gradual. The big changes were very rapid, but the environment for them to occur was evolving for generations. Bread and circus to keep the people distracted while enough small changes were made that a dictator could take power.
I can't speak for health care anywhere else, but here in NY state, I have a lot of relatives who work in healthcare and we've had discussions about this a lot. According to them, in the last 20 years the cost to have a baby in the hospital has tripled, not because of any real increase in how expensive the procedures are or anything like that, but because the doctors have to pay massive amounts, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, for malpractice insurance. Also, just staying in the hospital, using nothing but a bed had almost tripled in cost because paperwork caused by regulation requires the hospital have many more people on staff than they need for just the medicine.
and this is just the worst example, the cost of surgery has increased almost for no other reason than frivolous malpractice suits. Anesthesiologists have to have hundreds of thousands in malpractice insurance. To give you an idea of how much of the cost this is, a friend of mine is a low-responder to drugs. He had to have surgery on his lungs, and it took 3 doses of anesthesia to put him out, and another because he started to wake up part way through. The surgery was supposed to cost under $3,000 and ended up costing well over $6,000 just because of the extra anesthesia and the added risk the anesthesiologist took by giving him such a high dangerous dose.
True enough this can't be answered by just health-care reform, but it could be a beginning
You are of course correct, some of the increase in costs is simply because medicine is more expensive, but if you cut out a lot of the unnecessary costs here in the US, the cost would drop dramatically.
When I said I was independent, I was talking about not affiliating myself with any party. I just described my views, very briefly, to give you an idea of what my political position was.
I do not believe that the Jeffersonian system is flawed because it places the risk of a potential tyrant to be the main threat, I think that is a very real threat that it needs to be watched closely. However, I think there is a bigger threat that has come about from the reforms that have been instituted since his time, specifically the universal 'right' to vote. I think that making voting a right has caused American politics to have absolutely nothing to do with politics.
It's a theater, a giant act. Most people no longer vote for the politician who will make the changes they want, because campaign promises are nothing but lies. 3 years ago we elected a democratic majority based on an end to our involvement in Iraq, that never happened. This is just one example.
I believe that voting should be a privilege, earned by showing a functional understanding of the political system, economics, and probably a little bit of understanding the geopolitical situation, at least knowing who the main allies and enemies of your country are, and who the major players in the global climate are as well.
As for barons and merchants, I disagree a little bit. I think that statement implies a distrust of capitalism, but I think capitalism is the best system so far conceived of. far from perfect, but the best of a bad lot, so to speak. I think capitalism would work very well, and perhaps become the ideal system if regulation was no longer focused on shutting down monopolies and ect, because big business will always find a way to exploit the consumers, whether it be monopoly, oligopoly, or some other situation not yet thought of. The place to focus regulation is to give small businesses enough advantages and protections that they can compete with big business(IMO). I think that is the best way to go.
Nice last point. Well, that was significantly more long-winded than I was going for, but I didn't want to leave any of your points unanswered.
Guitars are made illegal in the USA due to their high lead content that is poisoning the country.
Scientists are currently working on a formula that will let them genetically engineer a guitar that doesn't rely on having a lead coating. But the only logical replacements are highly radioactive elements such as Plutonium/Neptunium.
The country is crying out from its desaturation of creativity and joy.
Except for the republicans; they don't get any of this hippie crap.
Meanwhile, Europe continues to express its musical ability through the use of accordions/bagpipes and compression organs, which are made purely from noble gasses, mostly xenon, to make sure they don't react horribly with humans (except for for both centaurs (which are now considered more than 50% human), who lose their horse body when in contact with krypton, and superman, with the same reaction).
Scientists are currently working on a formula that will let them genetically engineer a guitar that doesn't rely on having a lead coating. But the only logical replacements are highly radioactive elements such as Plutonium/Neptunium.
The country is crying out from its desaturation of creativity and joy.
Except for the republicans; they don't get any of this hippie crap.
Meanwhile, Europe continues to express its musical ability through the use of accordions/bagpipes and compression organs, which are made purely from noble gasses, mostly xenon, to make sure they don't react horribly with humans (except for for both centaurs (which are now considered more than 50% human), who lose their horse body when in contact with krypton, and superman, with the same reaction).
I always loved that quote, let's be friends.TheLaofKazi said:
On topic.
Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo.
Well, you can't prove things like that without any doubt. Not yet anyway. And a scientific theory is not the same as just a theory. As for the size of the universe, scientists think they know proximately how big it is (and it's the best guess so far), but only 4% of that we can observe and make experiments and theories based on those observations. We don't know what (if anything) lies beyond our universe because we can't observe it that far. You don't have to accept scientific discoveries as definite, but they are good enough to keep us moving forward and discover new things which will improve our knowledge of the universe we live in. Or maybe, we'll even find out that nothing of that is true. The bottom line is, Big Bang Theory will help us in discovering what really happened. Like any theory it can be improved, changed or completely debunked. But for now it works, just like evolution.smudgey said:
xbox hero said:
Thank you.Use_Imagination_here said:
I am very versatile, and I don't mean to spam or anything, but since I want to make a living off my composing I'd just like to say that if anyone knows of any project, like films, games, concerts, etc, needing music, I'm fully available.
Sometimes it feels to me as if hope, contrary to what appears to be public opinion, is not the last thing to leave man, but the first. Not until you have given up on something can it truly be said that you have lost it. (Note that this is not true for all cases; you could lose your life to a bullet without giving up on life.) However, some things should be 'lost', sometimes you should give up hope regarding a thing, because your reasons for wanting it is already lost, and your only reason for still pursuing it is of habit, or some negative emotional reaction (revenge, spite, etc).
Basically:
x / 0 = y
x = 0 * y
y can be any number if x = 0 (and x cannot be anything but zero). (Edited some stupid mistakes.)
At least, that is the way I've understood it. This is, of course, if you accept that it is defined (which it, according to modern mathematics, isn't).
Not completely true. The question '0/0' asks for what, multiplied by zero, equals zero. I could, of the top of my head, think of, weell... kind of... an infinite amount. All the positive integers, all the negative ones, all the infinite amount of numbers between two arbitrary integers... You get the idea.As for 0/0, you could argue that the answer is 1. When you divide by something you are basically asking how many are in there, so 4/2 is asking how many twos are in four. How many zeros are in zero? One.
Basically:
x / 0 = y
x = 0 * y
y can be any number if x = 0 (and x cannot be anything but zero). (Edited some stupid mistakes.)
At least, that is the way I've understood it. This is, of course, if you accept that it is defined (which it, according to modern mathematics, isn't).
A villain is merely a hero unrealized.
Humans are merely animals with a higher capacity for logic.
My father scorches the heavens with his life and my mother crushes existence with her death.
Humans are merely animals with a higher capacity for logic.
My father scorches the heavens with his life and my mother crushes existence with her death.