merjet Posted September 1, 2017 Author Share Posted September 1, 2017 On Peikoff's ‘Fact and Value’ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted September 5, 2017 Share Posted September 5, 2017 Graet article. Peikoff thinks Objectivism is fragile and not robust. And I think Rand would say of Peikoff here--WTF? --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted September 5, 2017 Author Share Posted September 5, 2017 21 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said: Graet article. Peikoff thinks Objectivism is fragile and not robust. Thanks. Where did he say that? URL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted September 8, 2017 Share Posted September 8, 2017 On 9/5/2017 at 6:40 AM, merjet said: Thanks. Where did he say that? URL? If you say the philosophy collapses if one part is not accepted or compromised then that's fragility. Contrary, Rand said in "To Whom It May Concern" that Objectivism was its own avenger destroying its half-way miscreants. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted September 8, 2017 Share Posted September 8, 2017 1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said: If you say the philosophy collapses if one part is not accepted or compromised then that's fragility. Contrary, Rand said in "To Whom It May Concern" that Objectivism was its own avenger destroying its half-way miscreants. --Brant That sounds quasi-religious. Woe, oh Woe unto him that changes a jot or a tittle of this Law!. In the land of Islam any attempt to modify or negate what the Prophet said is met with Fatwas which are based on what the Prophet said. Fiddle with Islam and Islam will wreak vengeance and destruction. Ditto for Judaism and Christianity. Each of the Prophets (and that includes Rand) either claimed or their follower claimed that they were the Last Word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted September 9, 2017 Author Share Posted September 9, 2017 The Cost of Rights Infinitesimal #1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 3 hours ago, merjet said: The Cost of Rights Infinitesimal #1 Infinitesimals did not achieve a rigorous logical foundation until 1965 when Abraham Robinson figured a way of deploying second order logic to make infinitesimals as well founded as Archimedean fields.* In the early 19 th century August Cauchy and those who followed his work found a way to bypass the rickety logic of infinitesimals and get the same results (in calculus and differential equations). This is the limit concept which is the way that real and complex variables are still handled. But it is possible to base real and complex variables on infinitesimals although it is not that commonly done. Infinitesimals and limits get the same results and most mathematically trained people are used to limits (rigorously define and applied). * An Archimedean Field is a division ring such that if e > 0, however small given any large quantity L we can find an integer N such that N x e > L. In short we can produce a large quantity from a small quantity by adding it to itself a sufficiently large number of time. In the system of infinitesimals if e* is an infinitesimal N x e* is an infinitesimal no matter how big N is. Yet e* is not equal to zero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted September 12, 2017 Author Share Posted September 12, 2017 Infinitesimal #2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 1 hour ago, merjet said: Infinitesimal #2 See this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_set_theory Ed Nelson (1932-2014) formulated the theory of infinitesimals in such way as to make a detailed knowledge of formal logic unnecessary. Nelson's invention of IST (internal set theory) makes infinitesimals accessible to non-genius mathematicians. So far as I know, every theorem based on IFC can also be proved using the standard theory of limits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted September 15, 2017 Author Share Posted September 15, 2017 Infinitesimal #3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted September 18, 2017 Author Share Posted September 18, 2017 Infinitesimal #4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 22 hours ago, merjet said: Infinitesimal #4 Thomas Hobbes, not John Hobbes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted September 19, 2017 Author Share Posted September 19, 2017 11 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said: Thomas Hobbes, not John Hobbes. Oops. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted September 24, 2017 Author Share Posted September 24, 2017 Burns & Novick's The Vietnam War #1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted September 26, 2017 Author Share Posted September 26, 2017 Burns & Novick's The Vietnam War #2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backlighting Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 I'm enjoying the footage, most of which I have never seen before. I guess most of it was obtained from Russian, Chinese & the Vietnam governments. I was stationed in Japan (1968-69), in the Army, as a offset press operator. I remember printing, for days on end, tens of thousands leaflets which were dropped by plane, with Thieu's face on it...along with his plea to the S. Vietnamese people for their support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted September 30, 2017 Author Share Posted September 30, 2017 Burns & Novick's The Vietnam War #3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted September 30, 2017 Share Posted September 30, 2017 6 hours ago, merjet said: Burns & Novick's The Vietnam War #3 Thanks for the summary. I was part of an unofficial "invasion" of Cambodia in November 1966. When we found out where we were we were ordered to withdraw after inflicting heavy casualties. We used airboats, hovercraft and helicopters. This was in IV Corps. When I was told in 1965 conventional forces were going into Vietnam I worried that it would be another Korea, only worse, with +40,000 dead Americans. The ten thousandth died while I was in Vietnam. In a book I wrote--never published--in and about 1971, I predicted almost exactly the end of South Vietnam. I just didn't know when beyond a few more years. None of this was great brain work; the Nixon/Kissinger administration knew it too. When Congress appropriated an indecent amount of money in early 1975 to support the South Vietnamese government--half what Ford had requested--that effectively eviscerated the regime. The North Vietnamese came in through the Central Highlands and when the South Vietnamese military ran before them they sent a conventional army south through the DMZ. The United States then could have, if it had had the will, inserted a trapping force behind that army and destroyed it with air power. But that would have defied the logic of the entire situation. The Tet Offensive of 1968 resulted in the utter destruction of the Viet Cong reducing the conflict to a conventional North-South war. But Johnson threw in the towel. Still, the war as such was won but the US couldn't sustain the victory for the peace negotiations were a blatant confession of American defeat. All US wars since WWII--I'm not evaluating WWII here--were proxy wars. Wars designed not to be won but to be fought. You have to give Eisenhower credit for stopping the Korean War. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted October 3, 2017 Author Share Posted October 3, 2017 Amazon HQ2 #1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted October 27, 2017 Author Share Posted October 27, 2017 Trump's "Across State Lines" BaloneyEpic Systems Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 On 10/27/2017 at 3:54 AM, merjet said: Trump's "Across State Lines" BaloneyEpic Systems This all may be true, but Medicare is heavily subsidized. The basic problem is third-party payer and government control of medicine. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted November 4, 2017 Author Share Posted November 4, 2017 Amazon HQ2 #2Amazon HQ2 #3Trump's Tax Plan and Demagogues Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted December 22, 2017 Author Share Posted December 22, 2017 Senate tax bill End Corporate Income Tax? #1 End Corporate Income Tax? #2 Senate tax bill #2 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act #1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted July 12, 2018 Author Share Posted July 12, 2018 Association Group Health Insurance Supreme Court rules against forced fees to unions Marconi #1 Marconi #2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted July 17, 2018 Author Share Posted July 17, 2018 Marconi #3 Marconi #4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now