User:Root4(one)/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is the beginning.[edit]

これは初めである。
Это начало.
이것은 시작되고 있다.

.هذه هي البداية

User:Jimbo Wales/In many languages...


I loved this Dürer Rhino woodcut I just HAD to place it on my page!

Will someone please take care of my Rhino?


This is a really old page with little modification and it will probably stay that way Root4(one) 21:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


This user believes...[edit]

λ This user believes that the only way to make sense of humans is to use the analysis of paraconsistent logic.
This user acts occasionally
pretentious

but likes to

Self Efface

and has really odd

Color  Choice 
  • This user believes in a GOD.
  • This user believes in editing not necessarily with a Neutral Point Of View but with an Emotionally Neutral Point Of View
  • This user wants to make his own templates for self expression but doesn't have time to do it right now.
  • This user hates the phrase "This user" but doesn't want to start these sentences with "I believe" just because it sounds pretentious, and also this user finds it funny to refer to himself as "this user"
  • This user has used and written in many programming languages.
  • This user is procrastinating to work (as of sometime in January 2006) because he's stupidly editing his user page.
  • This user things this UL list (in fact, this entire page) is messed up but needs to eat, so he has to go. Bye!
  • This user strongly rejects the Principle of Bivalence except possibly in extremely limited circumstances. (See below).
  • This user thinks Borromean rings are one of the coolest constructs around.
  • This user things just because we (think we) know so much in the world, we shouldn't keep ourselves from asking child-like questions. We might be surprised what we don't know.
  • This user is curious about the practical aspects of knots.
  • This user wants to know the relationship between knots and knitting.
  • This user is also curious about the physics of tied knots. Which knots are best? Can one knot be mathematically proven better than another? How might concepts from physics prove this, or how might they prove that certain unknots cannot be untangled without stretching some portion of the knot?
  • This user is curious about properties of the vector field around various types of knots, topological or not, should the knots possess certain real or imaginary forces. For instance, how might the electromagnetic field around a knot look like, given a proper presentation?
  • This user wants to know if string theory should be related to knot theory. Seriously!
  • This user will probably live his life unfulfilled of learning the knowledge of knots because he's too busy reading Wikipedia and doing other stuff instead of performing exercises that would actually teach him the knowledge he seeks. What, me work?
  • This user thinks Hollywood is lame, but every now and then does enjoy a good movie.
  • This user hates the obsession media figures have with Paris Hilton, American Idol, Angelina Jolie, Donald Trump, Brad Pitt.
  • This user thinks most sitcoms are lame, predictable, and humorless.
  • This user thinks South Park is funny but is annoyed with its scatological obsessions.
  • This user thanks God for PBS.
  • This user is irate with NPR.
  • This user thinks today's conservative is not conservative, todays moderate only draws away from contention, today's liberal is spooky, today's libertarian is an idiot, today's anarchist ... "WTF?", today's communist is dead, today's socialist is antisocial, today's poor is Christ, today's rich are mighty, ....
  • This user likes making use of unrelentingly long lists of useless comparisons.
  • This user believes (in fact knows) at least one of the things he says he believes on this page is wrong. Which one(s) is/are it/they?
  • This user believes a singular "they" would make English so much easier, even if it sounds stupid.
  • This user believes lying, or rather, the act of speaking deceptively, is not wrong;
  •  (1 - \epsilon)*100% of most "white lies" are the embodiment of evil. I'm not telling you I believe, I KNOW.
  • Was that last bit a bit funny? I hope so.
  • Still, I think many people tell "white lies" too much. See Abilene paradox, obsequious, Pussy, etc.
  • This user thinks the word "Fuck" is not a bad word, and too many Christians put too much emphasis on the usage of that specific word. The word often used too much... its a waste of breath and energy. The time spent think saying "Fuck! Fuck! Fuck!" is akin to a stutter, or a brainfart. It's also like a micro panic attack. There are so many reasons for not saying it. But it should not be made out to be a sin for saying it.
  • There's an incredible difference in saying "Fuck!", out of panic, "Fuck!" out of annoyance or general anger, and "Fuck you!", out of hatred. Cursing another being in itself should be avoided and considered a sin against said being. I'm certain this is what the bible means. (Matthew 5:22, James 3:2-12)
  • This user believes not going to any movie because it is R-rated for "biblical reasons" is letting the Motion Picture Association of America do your thinking for you.
  • NC-17 rated is different, because almost surely, it is porn.
  • This user believes a person needs to find out on his own what the Bible means.
  • This user does not believe most people will go to hell. He doesn't know where they'll go. Only God knows.
  • This user believes God is personal.
  • This user often wonders if he's crazy.
  • This user believes a literal interpretation of many portions of the bible still lends itself to several interpretations. He wonders if the concept of the "living constitution" cannot be applied here. He also wonders if that were not the original intent.
  • This user thinks the Bible is so full of holes that the only way to fill these holes is with prayer. He understands the annoyances many people (Christian, Atheist) have with that view but does not believe this particular belief is Biblically inconsistent.
  • The Bible never was meant as a program from which we can derive all right and wrong, all actions to take, etc. If we were to consider it as such (say an axiomatic basis for morals), it would probably suffer the same consequences as peano arithmetic by way of Gödel's incompleteness theorems. I cannot prove this.
  • This user wonders how Ludwig Wittgenstein would interpret the Bible.
  • This user wonders how much of this Bible talk is Bullshit.
  • This user thinks one must be forthright and honest about what he believes, even his own inconsistencies. One should not let ones own sins hinder communication.
  • This user understands all to well the reasons for wanting to hide such problems.
  • This user has to admit to some addiction to Pornography.
  • Pornography is an interesting topic. There are those that feel its normal for a guy to have some desire for it. This may be inarguable, but does that mean this "normalcy" is to be desired? If a man and a woman are married, and there is a desire or lust in the man for another woman, how can that help the marriage or the family? However, I'm not convinced pornography as a device for married couples to copulate is a "bad" usage, either, if both parties are interested.
  • The Sorites Paradox (in English,"the paradox of the heap") describes a single instance of a fuzzy concept and how hard it is to reason about. Now, understand most things in common language are even fuzzier than the concept of a "Heap". Now, apply those concepts to the language of religion and philosophy. That which was thought to be a vast library of human knowledge turns to a bag of mustard seed.
  • I don't think one should worry about misinterpreting the Bible; if you have interpreted it wrong, God will show you what's right.
  • This user believes the paradox of happiness is noteworthy.

Stuff[edit]

  • I remember one time at a party talking to a girl I liked, a red headed engineer with very nice posterior assets. She was there with her ex (they were just friends). We had a few things in common, and she did seem to like me a bit. However, with her graduating, living in a different part of town, etc, I realized we'd have to have a whole lot in common before I'd consider investing time with her to see if a relationship could be formed. That and I'm just not certain I want to date somebody in the same field as me. It came time for us to part ways, as she had to leave with her ex. To get his attention, she then shouted out to her ex calling him by my name! (Yes, her ex does not share the same name as me). Its one of the strangest and funniest incidents I've ever been in.


Philosophical Musings[edit]

  • "I don't know" is always a possible answer to any question asked of yourself. Always remember that. Sometimes you may not know the answer to this particular question, but to a related question. Never be afraid to show what exactly you don't know, and don't assume the answerer knows that you don't know.
  • `"Assume" makes an Ass out of "U" (you) and "me".' Cute quote, but rarely useful, since we all must have some common assumptions in mind in order to communicate successfully.
  • This philosophical point ain't done yet, in fact it may be total BS. Braess' paradox not only is a comment about adding about adding extra capacity to a network and not getting the desired results, but also about Selfishness. If we consider the throughput of the network to be something more abstract and potentially beneficial to society and if we consider people who know about the network but act only in their own selfish interests and without consideration for others, we see that acting ones self interest (where he's only concerned about himself) is not to the greater benefit to society. Only by considering society as a whole, can we attain the optimal benefit.
    • In order for society run smoothly, somebody has to take the crappy roads.
(note, the current example given as up January 26, 2007 assumes a simple algorithm that routes people through the network... a more advanced algorithm may route people more efficiently, but the cost of the algorithm may be prohibitively expensive for large networks, such that my talk of considering society as a whole may have no true bearing... The cost of weighing the options for the entire society may significantly outweigh the cost of letting people act in their own self interests in a network that was not designed to be as efficient as possible assuming people act as said.
What I truly intend is to give some sort of moralization about society, God, etc, needs people to take the "crappy path", and by being on the "crappy path" you may be doing quite a service to society. but I'm not sure I've delivered. Even in the example given, people have to take the crappy path because the optimal path quickly gets full. More to follow.
  • My mom always got on to me about getting my material possessions organized. These things were not of much value but of some import. I always tried, but it was never much use... I'd still have some big pile of unorganized crap. It wasn't until much later I realized that in order to organize, there MUST be a sufficient amount of material constructs available to divide and separate (or lift) the materials to be organized. I never had the quantity necessary to subdivide and categorize my possessions in order to give my possessions any reasonable amount of conceptual order. She had been giving me (practically) impossible tasks, because she did not understand herself how to do it.
  • I wonder if Gödel's incompleteness theorems may (only) imply that by adding additional axioms to a logical system powerful enough to express basic truths about arithmetic (whatever that means) we may learn more about the original system itself. For instance, are there theorems in mathematics purely stating some facts only about natural numbers that we cannot prove without usage of the concept of integers, the concept of rational numbers, or the concept of real numbers?

Comment Bank[edit]

I decided to preserve some comments I found on Talk:Evil I found interesting. Root4(one) 02:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Original source: [1]

Evil Discussion[edit]

From the pages of Talk:Evil

=== Tattletale ===


I just reverted some major vandalism, but maybe someone who's an admin should look into scolding 67.191.105.243 sternly. The user also vandalised disco! For shame. 72.196.104.129 20:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Forget communism, materialism, satanism and totaliaranism. Fascism is the true evil in our society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.197.71 (talkcontribs) 14:43, December 29, 2006
Communism isn't "evil", it just hasn't been properly exercised yet. Materialism isn't "evil", maybe "unfair" as it might end up with one person owning "everything" and another owning "nothing", but not "evil". Satanism isn't "evil" either (ironicly enough), it just has different moral ethics than some other religions. Totalitarianism is not "evil" either, it's just a form of politics that we feel uncomfortable with. Same goes for Facism... Me, myself, I wish that the Earth's population would decrease with about 5 billion humans, does that make me "evil"? Nope, my reasons for wishing this kinda justifies the ends (that, and I wouldn't dream of causing a genocide to achieve those ends, I'd rather just see the world of humans slowly dissapear with them completely unaware of it). 217.208.27.4 00:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow, Seriously, this user's comment submission is a bit scary to me. Perhaps its even a ironic display of evil?
"...I'd rather just see the world of humans slowly dissapear with them completely unaware of it". You know, we're quite capable of that. Toss a few thousand nuclear weapons all over the globe, or better yet, ship them remotely to all the places we just don't like, have them all go off simultaneously... Seems to meet your criteria. I'm sure the billions dying wouldn't be aware of the imminent death. Oh, you said "slowly"? Ok, we'll space out the events over the next hour, (that "slow" enough?) and remembering to knock out all satellite communications first.
What does them being unaware of their fates have anything to do with it?
Let me put some words in your mouth. Your statement really is a statement about your perception of an "ideal world". Who knows where the 1 billion number came from or why that's "ideal", but that's your ideal. Obviously, if we have 6 billion now, and we only want 1 billion for the future, we have a problem. You don't want to propose genocide (an obvious solution). But any transitory event that might precipitate transforming this world to your 1,000,000,000 people world wish that avoids the "evils" of genocide whatever you find "evil" would be welcome, (to you).
But, there's a problem. What if no path exists? What if there is no set of transitory states such that the limit point(s) fit some definition of the ideal world? If such a path cannot not exist, then surely there's some better ideal that exists that we can forge our efforts in closing producing a "better" spirit for Jesus/people/world/flying spaghetti monster/ etc. Otherwise, we'd be slaving away at something we cannot accomplish (if even partially). It would be much like that song, "Sixteen tons"
Sixteen tons, and what do you get,
Another day older and deeper in dept,
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store.
We'd be owing our "soul to the company store" for something we cannot get, and possibly get even worse off in the process. I'd argue that this is a form of evil that it would be hard to argue is not evil.
The same argument can be said if the problem is intractable rather than unsolvable. This wish to reduce the population is at the very least intractable.
The other scary portion about the 1,000,000,000 people world wish is, how random the goal is... I mean, why 1 billion. There's been no justification, other than "we'd like the world to be a bit smaller" to reduce pollution or whatever. If not 1 billion, why not 500 million? Why not 500,000 elite scientists? Does this not sound incredibly dystopian to you?
I'm sorry, I just find it incredibly funny that in a discussion page about "Evil" that I'm having to point out to you that your thought processes reek of it.
In my view, there are no evil people, only evil actions and evil thoughts.
What utter rot. There is no such thing as evil, in people, action or thought. Evil is nothing but pure fantasy. And besides, what does any of this have to do with the page itself? AngryStan 02:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, fine me, after I wrote that long piece I realized it had nothing to do with the article, and probably should have ignored the poster, who's comments are in a similiar reign. And frankly, you're trolling, (If evil is "pure fiction", what is this article? Hahaha... that's fucking hilarious Evil is pure fiction... HA HA HA HA HA!
(calming down)... ok, perhaps one of us should delete most of this section. I felt it necessary to warn against that kind of reasoning. Obviously, you don't agree, and probably never will. So be it.Root4(one) 02:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
We all have thoughts exploring possibilities like this; it is human nature. But I think that there is enough wisdom available to realize that this chain of thought is not appropriate. I beg of you to reconsider your thoughts. Root4(one) 01:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


Favorite Quotes[edit]

"It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so." -- Will Rogers

"Waste of time is thus the first and in principle the deadliest of sins. The span of human life is infinitely short and precious to make sure of one's own election. Loss of time through sociability, idle talk, luxury, even more sleep than is necessary for health. . . .is worthy of absolute moral condemnation. . . .[Time] is infinitely valuable because every hour lost is lost to labour for the glory of God. Thus inactive contemplation is also valueless, or even directly reprehensible if it is at the expense of one's daily work. For it is less pleasing to God than the active performance of His will in a calling" (Weber, Max. 1904/1930. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. , pp. 157-158). [2]

Now if I only knew what was truly a waste of time. Sometimes I think that "wasting time", by some people's definition, is exactly what God desires me to do. Root4(one) 14:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

ANALITY[edit]

*Footnote 1


ANAL MODE ON:

I must apologize, but I must tell you something that I find just a touch annoying.

I do like it when this page is read. I don't even mind when somebody adds stuff to the page. It means somebody cares.

However on February 9th, 2006, anonymous user172.145.243.233 noted on this page that -1 is a root of x^4 = 1. Well so are i and -i. However if f(x) is defined as some function from reals to reals where f(x) = \sqrt[4]{x}, then f(x) is only a strictly increasing function with domain and range being the set of positive reals (and zero). For all complex x and positive integers k, \sqrt[2k](x) is never negative (although for tiny positive epsilon \sqrt(1 -i\epsilon) is awfully close). So we cannot ever have \sqrt(4) = -2, but if we do know x^2 = 4, then x =±\sqrt(4).

Thanks for the correction, but none was necessary.

ANAL MODE OFF:

References[edit]


Arrrrggggh!! This don't work on user pages!