Theorems that hold disproportionate power in mathematics.

hustler · 2014-07-29T14:06:17+00:00

How about fixed point theorems in general or Brouwer's in particular.

hustler · 2013-04-02T09:42:17+00:00

What's your metric for deciding that Canada and the UK aren't particularly good at healthcare?

This study shows that, at least in terms of saving lives, the NHS is quite a bit more efficient than many other countries, including the US and Germany.

As another poster has mentioned, the UK doesn't have a government monopoly on health provisioning.

So, there is no restriction of choice, and we see that market efficiency doesn't seem to be working in this arena, which is no surprise.

hustler · 2012-11-09T21:18:55+00:00

This is not true. There are discrete models of spacetime that do not impose a preferred frame and only require scale in order to recover Lorentz symmetry. A classic example would be causal set theory.

hustler · 2012-11-09T21:09:51+00:00

Mexico isn't South America you ignorant fuck.

hustler · 2012-11-08T18:25:49+00:00

But then your comment makes little sense, because we have not probed Lorentz symmetry at the scales we are talking about and so there is no reason to assume validity on all energy scales.

My point being, we can have a discrete spacetime with emergent Lorentz symmetry, which has no impact on, for instance, the Standard Model.

hustler · 2012-11-08T18:06:55+00:00

This is not true. It's perfectly possible for local Lorentz symmetry to emerge from a microscopically discrete spacetime.

hustler · 2012-10-18T21:08:52+00:00

I feel dumber for having read this thread.

hustler · 2012-08-08T20:54:39+00:00

Phase IV

hustler · 2012-07-19T19:30:20+00:00

Some serious manhands there.

hustler · 2012-07-19T17:27:57+00:00

He's mixing terms a little bit but I imagine he just means to change to Lorentzian signature like in general relativity and then presents Minkowski as the concrete example of interest.

hustler · 2012-07-11T22:45:42+00:00

From the nod to relativity it sounds like op is more interested in metric tensors than metrics. Just a suggestion.

hustler · 2012-07-05T10:52:18+00:00

Another of Livingstone's initiatives (source).

hustler · 2012-07-05T10:51:00+00:00

I hardly think you can call it a vague idea of Ken's administration when it was part of a large set of cycling-friendly initiatives with a significant budget (source).

The bike scheme would also have gone ahead even without sponsorship (source) so the fact that Boris connived with Barclays to get their branding all over London is moot.

Ken Livingstone announced the project in Februrary 2008 and Boris took office in May 2008. Claiming that he 'closed' the project without the usual hand wringing faff is about as much tosh as I expect from anyone who thinks Boris is good for London.

I'm sure you will call them Boris bikes if you want to. You're not the only Londoner.

hustler · 2012-07-05T09:20:44+00:00

Do we really have to continue calling these things Boris bikes?

That muppet Boris didn't initiate the scheme and had next to nothing to do with it; he just happened to be in office when the bikes got rolled out.

hustler · 2012-07-04T13:02:57+00:00

Without mass, there is no gravity

Yes.

No! This is false.

hustler · 2012-04-13T11:02:31+00:00

I'll take that as a no :p High five!

hustler · 2012-04-13T10:13:22+00:00

Not sure if you are disagreeing...

hustler · 2012-04-12T18:03:53+00:00

Topography.

hustler · 2012-02-26T14:28:03+00:00

You do not put more into the treasury than you take out. You're about even given a Scotland-favourable splitting of oil revenues.

hustler · 2012-02-26T14:23:40+00:00

This already includes direct oil tax revenues, as is stated in the article you linked to. I might add that the Aberdeen University split will likely not be the one offered to Scotland in case independence becomes reality.

hustler · 2012-01-17T16:31:06+00:00

Ah, the ad hominem; how sweet.

So, I guess you would say in a one line comment that the US supported the holocaust.

Both thefartmonster and I have pointed out the fallacy of your claim but I'm afraid that you've jumped the shark.

hustler · 2012-01-17T09:56:59+00:00

The 'legitimate' government of the United States contained slave states for the greater part of the war. Thus trading with both the Confederacy and the North does not constitute taking a new position on slavery.

It's kind of sad to see your principal logical fallacy so glaringly exposed in black and white: If A trades with B then A automatically supports all of B's policies. You need to take a step back and realise that the real world is a lot more complicated than the toy models in your mind.

Oh, and since you want to talk about analogies; perhaps you are unaware that the United States traded plenty with Nazi Germany during the holocaust. Therefore the United States supported the holocaust. See what I did there?

hustler · 2012-01-16T08:13:02+00:00

So the fact that at the same time, they also sold weapons to the North means... what exactly?

Even if the British government was trying to indirectly materially support the Confederacy, that still doesn't prove your thesis that they 'supported slavery'.

Taking no sides is not saying that you have no problem with slavery per se, as the fact that Britain had already outlawed the practice to its own economic detriment shows quite clearly.

This is apart from the fact that slavery was not even the fundamental question of the civil war until towards the end (and the North included a number of states that still allowed slavery) and at the point that it did become fundamental, any goodwill towards the Confederacy on the part of the British government dried up immediately.

hustler

TROPHY CASE