uncool

It's not even true when taking finite groups. Let [math]G = \mathbb{Z}/4 \mathbb{Z} * \mathbb{Z}/2 \mathbb{Z}, H = \mathbb{Z}/2 \mathbb{Z}[/math]. Then we can embed [math]H[/math] in [math]G[/math] in a few different ways, and some will have quotients equal to [math](\mathbb{Z}/2 \mathbb{Z})^2[/math] and some [math]\mathbb{Z}/4 \mathbb{Z}[/math]. What I think you might be looking for is related to something called the Ext functor; depending on your level of knowledge, it might be a bit away. You'll see it in homological algebra. =Uncool-

You really have no idea how to interpret sarcasm, do you? Go and read Isaac Asimov's "The Relativity of Wrong". While epicycles are now considered wrong, they are correct as a very coarse approximation of what happens, and are better than what Bozo the clown comes up with. The reason they were discarded is because other people figured out evidence against epicycles. That's about as likely as you ever managing to realize that your idea - not theory, not even hypothesis - is unfalsifiable crap, and about as likely as you ever learning any physics. You mean nonexistent. You haven't predicted a single thing. You have neither predicted masses nor binding energies. Ever. Stop lying. You are lying again. No, it is not. And here you show that you don't know what an exact science is. Except the tradition of evidence. And the tradition of prediction. And the tradition of statistical testing. And the tradition of knowing what you're talking about. =Uncool-

Then what were you so angry about in the first post? =Uncool-

For one thing, the only orbits would be circles. The reason that orbits are stable in 3-D space is that the gravitational potential falls off more slowly than 1/r^2. When you get into 4-D space, the gravitational potential falls off at a rate of 1/r^2 exactly, and in higher-dimensional space, the gravitational potential falls off even more quickly. This leads to the only orbits being circles, and not just that, but those orbits are unstable - small changes in the orbit cause the planet to either go off to infinity or fall into the sun. =Uncool-

First, don't intentionally misrepresent what I have said. Second, yes, congratulations on finally figuring it out. Yup. Which is why we have continually asked you to demonstrate No, the response you have had is similar to telling Bozo the clown to go away and learn about the predictive power of epicycles. Both Kepler and Faraday knew the state of physics as it was in those days. We know your argument; your statement of it has nothing to do with what you are responding to. You are a a myopic hypocrite at that. Feel free to demonstrate how it was wrong, if you think it is. All this shows is that you should go back to the drawing board; you still have no understanding of why the two are equivalent. Except your own. Not without any evidence, nope. Not without a demonstration that your idea - not hypothesis, not theory - can explain all of the experiments that modern quantum field theory does, nope. Not until you manage to actually understand what it means to unify forces, nope. Quite easily, so long as that theory actually had evidence. Guess what your idea lacks. =Uncool-

First, "decided to conclude" is yet more of your deliberate insinuation of dishonesty. Further, you had not predicted which ones would be good ones, nor have you actually managed to demonstrate any statistical significance. Simply saying that some will be close to the cubes is not enough to predict - you must say exactly how close. That means that your table has no statistical significance. This is not "deciding to conclude there was no statistical significance" - it is concluding that it is on the basis of knowing what statistical significance is. And you are still a hypocrite. =Uncool-

I do not see any such attribution to him on the internet. Source? Uh. What are you trying to say? =Uncool-

Rigney, this is a prime example of a manipulative piece of propaganda. While the factual section - the "At <age>" part - seems to be accurate, everything that comes afterwards is written with subtle nuances to shift your views. Knew what? And others hadn't? Thomas Jefferson studied the standard for history at the time. His education in history was not very different from the education that many other pupils at William and Mary got. This is a perfect example of propaganda. The word "actual" is designed to make you think that Jefferson is the only person who understood history. First, by saying that "He understood actual history," it implies that even though others studied history, they didn't understand it like he did. Second, it says that there is actual history, which implies that there is some "history" which isn't "actual". This is a subtle denigration of the current study of history. It also says that others have studied fake history - that the lessons they took away from history are wrong because they went for the wrong history. A sentence like this is one of the most deceptive, propagandistic things a person can fall for. Considering that Jefferson thought that Jesus was at most a great moral teacher and that he was not at all supernatural, I'm not sure the writer of this post is being entirely truthful with you. Again, the implication so far is that Thomas Jefferson was the only one who understood history and the nature of man, and by now, most readers who like this e-mail pretty much take that implication to heart. Now, this is a good note to start off on, because it's an actual quote. (Note that my use of the word actual is exactly the same as the word actual used above - it implies that there are several quotes that are not "actual", which already has you thinking that someone is being dishonest) However, note that none of these quotes are cited. That is a prime warning that there probably are some fake quotes mixed in. True quote. False quote. False quote. True quote, but deceptive. The full quote is ""No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands]", and it was proposed for the Virginia Constitution. Without that context, it looks like Jefferson is making a much stronger statement. True. Misquote. The real quote is " "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. " Unfortunately, it ends on a false quote. Sources: http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/j/jefferson-quotes.htm, http://www.snopes.com/quotes/jefferson/banks.asp Really? An out-and-out direct abuse of executive power that doubled the size of the nation doesn't come close to 5 seconds in a speech? Not only that, but 5 seconds which (as we have demonstrated) served only to say that no man is an island? =Uncool-

Only if you think you do. You can always change how you think. Your mind only sets when you think that it sets. The basis on which politics was founded was that of the city - politics comes from the Latin for "city". That is, politics comes from the idea that when people band together, they can do better than they can apart. That's what Obama's point was. That's what the point of the tax is - so that we all can do better, even if it may seem to be an imposition on some. That's what's missing now - we now see the richest people enriching themselves without a care as to how the poor are doing. So no, let's not destroy the basis on which politics were founded. Let's make sure that we as a society do better than we could do separately. And the same to you. =Uncool-

Not to insult you, but they're referring to your statement as the "5-minute conversation", and you as the "average voter". The point is that they have done literally everything that could be done to change your views - presenting evidence that demonstrates that the basis of your views are incorrect, presenting evidence that what is proposed will help, etc. - and your response was simply (paraphrasing) "Those are my views, and they're not going to change". Basically, rigney, what could convince you that increasing taxes on the top earners in the country could be a good idea? My personal favorite quote along those lines: "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." - H. L. Mencken. =Uncool-

Who is advocating that? If I remember correctly, the tax being advocated was raising the top marginal rate on income tax from 36% to 39%, though I might be mixing that up with something else. 39% is nowhere near "a level where nothing can be created". Which "people"? Do you mean the CEOs? Because they are the ones that dictate how their businesses function. Do you mean all of the executives? Because those are the only blocs I can see. Are they really? Do you have statistics on how many companies are shutting their doors and going overseas? Can you compare it to a past time where things were about as bad, and policies were different? What scares me is the choice by many to use only soundbites and not to consider what people actually say and mean in context, and what their full plans are. =Uncool-

This isn't physics; further, its premise is wrong. The interval [LATEX]ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2[/LATEX] between two events is absolute, as are several other things. =Uncool-

Yes, it did. Because your immediate response was to ask about bias, rather than to ask him to substantiate; further, the way your question was phrased indicated that you do think that what he said was biased. Do you want him to substantiate what he has said? =Uncool-

Rigney, you still have yet to answer my questions 2 and 3. And please, don't forget to answer yes or no, and then to explain why. =Uncool-

You missed question 2 entirely, and your response to question 3 is not an answer. Further, I did ask you multiple times to first state "yes or no", and only then to give an explanation. Then why was he talking about the infrastructure beforehand? Further, why had he already said "Look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own." The clear intent is not to say that the individual had done nothing, but that there were other factors than just the individual. =Uncool-

Nope. It's a statement about historical fact that may or may not be true. Instead of assuming bias, you could ask him to substantiate what he said. =Uncool-

Verify? What I'm asking you to do is to explain your position. Period. That's all. I'm asking you to explain exactly what you mean when you say that what the president said is "bullshit". You have never explained exactly what you mean. So I reiterate: 1) Do you think that Obama was referring to infrastructure when he said "you didn't build that"? Yes or no first - then why. 2) Do you think that what we say Obama said - that owners of businesses did not build the infrastructure (roads and bridges) - is "bull squat"? Yes or no first - then why. 3) Do you think that what we say Obama's point was - that since business owners used infrastructure and did not get to where they are on their own, they should contribute back to society for their use of the infrastructure - is "bull squat"? Yes or no? 4) Do you think that Obama's point was what I just said we said it was? Yes or no first, then why. =Uncool-

Feel free to respond whenever you want. Just please make sure to respond before trying to dump on Obama's "you didn't build that" quote again. I asked the questions because your posts have been extremely ambiguous as to what you're calling bullshit, and every attempt to elicit what precisely you are calling bullshit has been met with evasion. =Uncool-

Again, what are you responding to in my post? Your post seems to have literally nothing to do with what I asked you. 1) Do you think that Obama was referring to infrastructure when he said "you didn't build that"? Yes or no first - then why. 2) Do you think that what we say Obama said - that owners of businesses did not build the infrastructure (roads and bridges) - is "bull squat"? Yes or no first - then why. 3) Do you think that what we say Obama's point was - that since business owners used infrastructure and did not get to where they are on their own, they should contribute back to society for their use of the infrastructure - is "bull squat"? Yes or no? 4) Do you think that Obama's point was what I just said we said it was? Yes or no first, then why. =Uncool-

...what does this have to do with the post you quoted? Rigney, what reason do you have to believe that Obama was saying anything other than what we are saying he was saying? =Uncool-

That's exactly what those "hoops" are. Until you can make falsifiable predictions, they don't mean anything, and it's impossible to test whether your theory accounts for the experimental evidence. It was a general statement, which certainly seems to be your opinion in all cases, especially when it comes to quark theory - since you deride quark theory for being complex and substitute your own theory even though your own theory predicts next to nothing if not nothing, while quark theory has predicted numbers for the past 40 years, which have come out right. I notice that you have yet to respond to my post explaining why SR is accepted over LET. To quote it: I note that you keep snipping very relevant portions of my post. Are you going to acknowledge the multiple lies in your post? =Uncool-

The classic book on QFT is Peskin and Schroeder's An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory. If I remember correctly, it does include how the electromagnetic gauge symmetry appears in the Lagrangian, which should be what you need. =Uncool-

Which laws? How so? The reason for focusing on marginal quantities in almost all of economics is mostly sound - because any rational decision-making depends only on the margin, not on the total. =Uncool-

So here, your assumption is constant acceleration, correct? That is the only way that a = (v - u)/t always. The correct thing to say is that a = dv/dt. Now wait. The assumption behind v = d/t is that of constant velocity. The correct thing to say is that v = dd/dt - that velocity is the derivative of distance over time. You are making the assumption of no acceleration at all - since if you have a constant velocity, the acceleration must be 0. Combined with your earlier assumption that the velocity at t = 0 is 0, you are making the assumption that the velocity is constantly 0.

And relativity, which you have decided to deny. Remember? First, this doesn't demonstrate any "experimental evidence point[ing] to the nonexistence of quarks", so you have misplaced it. Second, no, saying that it "involves one quark metamorphosing into another", which is very poorly worded, is not a religious theory; it is a scientific theory that makes specific testable falsifiable predictions - including how often such a "metamorphosis" will happen. And guess what - those predictions are borne out. Which your idea - not a hypothesis, not a theory - fails to do. A unification involves specific testable predictions; your idea - not a hypothesis, not a theory - does not make any specific testable predictions. Now this is an out and out lie. People are prepared to accept that quarks can be wrong. Not only that, people here told you exactly what they would need to accept that quarks are wrong. What they are not prepared to do is assume that quarks are wrong without any evidence that they are wrong. Your idea - not a theory, not a hypothesis - has no evidence, and fails to even explain the current experimental evidence at all. You would have done better attempting to find specific testable predictions and actually carrying out experiments. Alternatively, you would have done better learning what current physics really states, rather than your complete and utter misunderstandings of it based on media popularizations of the physics. Given your inability to understand why physicists are so fully convinced, it probably is pointless for you to carry on. Note, however, that that reflects on your ignorance and arrogance, not on the physicists. =Uncool-