Movatterモバイル変換

I realized, sadly that I’m unable to understand how the sequence is created and I spend some time trying to understand the internal logic of it.
I realize that I’m no mathematician and will have to spend some CONSIDERATE time on it to understand it.
I have no idea how the next number is created and none of the articles that I found explain it in the detail needed for me to actually understand it.
Some are even plain wrong and contradict other articles.
I understand the first run
1,2,2…and then it becomes seriously murky.
Can anyone point me to the Kolakowski sequence for 5 years old? I am interested in learning more about it.

Jews are probably one of the most genetically disparate people on earth that identify themselves with a particular origin. There are ones that could be mistaken for northern Europeans, ones that could be mistaken for Arabs, ones that could be mistaken for part-oriental looking Tatars and ones that look like they have a lot of negro blood. Tying all these different groups together and selling the idea that they’re all from the same group is quite a feat, but isn’t surprising considering that they’ve convinced millions of Christians that they’re also the decendents of the people who are mentioned in the Bible.

English please?

It’s biology, not badness: but it’s written Romans 8:20

“For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,”

All of the humanity and creation problems is related to The Creator of whom everything is subject to.
Unwise people are listening do deceiving spirits. Colossians 2:8

“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”

The one who rules this world keeps you in doubt as to The Truth, so you keep searching in vanity.
We have a choice ,most themes written in this article are subject to our believe in them, or not.
Those who say are Jews, but are not, think they can control God(reality) through witchcraft they are performing. So stay tuned to The Word of God who gives wisdom to those who ask for it.

This interesting article inevitably reminded me of the song below. As an aside, in our AI sodden age, it is worth remembering the lessons from the Temple of Syrinx.

The PCA in the article is very misleading. The original PCA has no circles. The circles were added probably by some lying ethnocentric Jew who wants to pretend that all Jews are related to each other which obviously is a lie. In fact the original PCA without the fake circles proves that Jews are not a single people. PCA in genetics is often misleading, but when some Jew adds fake circles, it is just a lie. If you look at the original PCA without the fake circles, you will see that the there are Jews on the left and the right that are not in the Jew circle. A complete Jew circle with all the Jews would include also many other populations.

Here is a version where all Ashkenazi Jews are actually in the same circle:

https://twitter.com/Quillette/status/1420742462725709824

https://twitter.com/NoahCarl90/status/1413225552522227717

If we look at the homicide data for sub-Saharan Africa, then in places in which there’s no actual war or famine, which today thankfully means the majority of the continent, we’ll see that the only African blacks who behave like US blacks are the South African blacks.

The data from other African countries are not always trustworthy. South Africa still has a first world level of reporting data. I was told by a Ghanian that Nigeria was more dangerous than South Africa. Maybe South Africa uses “White standards”.

…and here, from within the entire episode, is a link to the last segment, where Glenn Loury offers a qualified defense of Charles Murray’s book to counter John McWhorter’s critique:

Rejecting Racial Determinism | Glenn Loury & John McWhorter | The Glenn Show

Video Link

0:00 A peek inside Glenn’s writing process
3:31 Aaron Hana’s critique of Thomas Sowell and Shelby Steele
13:50 Extending the presumption of free will to Black communities
19:31 Who gets to opine on race matters?
32:09 Black rednecks
44:31 Is the “acting white” phenomenon real?
53:58 A critique of Charles Murray’s new book …
1:12:12 … and a defense of same

Glenn Loury (Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, Brown University) and John McWhorter (Columbia University, Lexicon Valley, The Atlantic). Recorded June 29, 2021.

…and here finally is the entire episode:

Coleman Hughes on The Perils of Race Science with Charles Murray [S2 Ep.21]

Video Link

Facing “Facing Reality” | Glenn Loury & John McWhorter | The Glenn Show

Video Link

Glenn Loury and John McWhorter debate the merits of Charles Murray’s new book, Facing Reality: Two Truths about Race in America.

https://twitter.com/GlennLoury/status/1410371566572036096

https://twitter.com/JohnHMcWhorter/status/1410302768494043141

Coleman Hughes and Charles Murray:

The Consequences of the Race & IQ Discourse with Charles Murray

Video Link

This is an excerpt of my conversation with Charles Murray.

…and here finally is the entire discussion:

Facing Reality | Glenn Loury & Charles Murray | The Glenn Show

0:00 Intro
1:37 How Charles deals with his notoriety
5:26 Charles’s new book, Facing Reality: Two Truths about Race in America
13:49 Grappling with the fact of group disparities
21:04 Threats from the left, threats from the right
27:33 The shift in white attitudes toward race since the 1950s
35:11 What would happen if white people revolted?
41:13 Charles: Black people are not genetically inferior
50:36 Why small differences in ability can have major consequences
54:29 Charles: We need universal, not race-based, public policy solutions

Glenn Loury (Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, Brown University) and Charles Murray (AEI, The Bell Curve). Recorded June 1, 2021.

Also can be seen at Bloggingheads.tv:
https://bloggingheads.tv/videos/61888

Here’s the next posted segment:

Grappling with Genetic Variation | Glenn Loury & Charles Murray | The Glenn Show

Glenn Loury and Charles Murray discuss genetic differences within and between populations.

none of you, or any of you, should respond to my June 5th post. The game is over.

Here’s the first YouTube posted segment of the Glenn Loury & Charles Murray discussion:

The Coming Backlash | Glenn Loury & Charles Murray | The Glenn Show

Glenn Loury and Charles Murray discuss threats to social stability posed by ideological commitments from the left and the right.

Derbyshire says, “Prove that, within the larger circle, the shaded area is equal to the non-shaded area; in other words, that the sum of the areas of the two semicircles is half the area of the big circle.”

In other words, prove that r1^2 + r2^2 = (1/2)*r3^2, where the r’s are radii.

blake1266 says. “1/2* pi * r1^2 + 1/2* pi * r2^2 = 1/2* pi * r3^2”, which reduces to r1^2 + r2^2 = r3^2.

Blakes’ equation is incorrect. His equation sets the sum of the areas of the two semicircles equal to the area of the circle, instead of half the area.

How to solve the equation pi*r1^2 + pi*r2^2 = pi*(1/2)*r3^2 ?

Let r1 = r2 = (1/2)*r3, noticing that (1/2)^2 = 1/4.

Then pi*(1/4)*(R1)^2 + pi*(1/4)*(r2)^2 = pi*(1/2)*r3^2 , half the area of the circle with radius r3.

UK Blacks are much more violent than UK Whites:

Black people are more likely to be victims of homicide, the figures show. About 15% of all victims in the period were black, but only 3% of the general population are black. Sixty-four per cent of victims were white, while white people make up 85% of the general population.

In the three years to March last year, the average homicide rate per million population, at 49.5, was about five times higher for black people than white people, at 9.4. The rate of victimisation for black people has soared, a 70% increase when compared with the three years to March 2014.

The figures also show black people are more likely to be perpetrators of homicide and murder. Approximately one in five – or 21% – of convicted suspects were black. About 67% of suspects convicted of homicide were identified as white.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/25/killings-of-black-people-in-england-and-wales-at-highest-level-for-decades

The books adults gave us, and the ones forced down our throats at school, were nearly all British. I think the only American titles ranked high up in every list of approved books-for-kids in 1950s Britain were Tom Sawyer and Little Women.)

Interesting. That’s quite a departure from the Britain of Orwell’s childhood. In his day, Brit kids were surrounded by Yank kid-lit:

But one other imaginary country that I acquired early in life was called America. If I pause on the word “America”, and, deliberately putting aside the existing reality, call up my childhood vision of it, I see two pictures — composite pictures, of course, from which I am omitting a good deal of the detail.

One is of a boy sitting in a whitewashed stone schoolroom. He wears braces and has patches on his shirt, and if it is summer he is barefooted. In the corner of the school room there is a bucket of drinking water with a dipper. The boy lives in a farm-house, also of stone and also whitewashed, which has a mortgage on it. He aspires to be President, and is expected to keep the woodpile full. Somewhere in the background of the picture, but completely dominating it, is a huge black Bible. The other picture is of a tall, angular man, with a shapeless hat pulled down over his eyes, leaning against a wooden paling and whittling at a stick. His lower jaw moves slowly but ceaselessly. At very long intervals he emits some piece of wisdom such as “A woman is the orneriest critter there is, ‘ceptin’ a mule”, or “When you don’t know a thing to do, don’t do a thing”; but more often it is a jet of tobacco juice that issues from the gap in his front teeth. Between them those two pictures summed up my earliest impression of America. And of the two, the first — which, I suppose, represented New England, the other representing the South — had the stronger hold upon me.

The books from which these pictures were derived included, of course, books which it is still possible to take seriously, such as Tom Sawyer and Uncle Tom’s Cabin, but the most richly American flavour was to be found in minor works which are now almost forgotten. I wonder, for instance, if anyone still reads Rebecca Of Sunnybrook Farm, which remained a popular favourite long enough to be filmed with Mary Pickford in the leading part. Or how about the “Katy” books by Susan Coolidge (What Katy Did At School, etc), which, although girls’ books and therefore “soppy”, had the fascination of foreignness? Louisa M. Alcott’s Little Women and Good Wives are, I suppose, still flickeringly in print, and certainly they still have their devotees. As a child I loved both of them,though I was less pleased by the third of the trilogy, Little Men. That model school where the worst punishment was to have to whack the schoolmaster, on “this hurts me more than it hurts you” principles, was rather difficult to swallow.

Helen’s Babies belonged in much the same world as Little Women, and must have been published round about the same date. Then there were Artemus Ward, Bret Harte, and various songs, hymns and ballads, besides poems dealing with the civil war, such as “Barbara Fritchie” (“Shoot if you must this old grey head, But spare your country’s flag, — she said”) and “Little Gifford of Tennessee”. There were other books so obscure that it hardly seems worth mentioning them, and magazine stories of which I remember nothing except that the old homestead always seemed to have a mortgage on it. There was also Beautiful Joe, the American reply to Black Beauty, of which you might just possibly pick up a copy in a sixpenny box. All the books I have mentioned were written well before 1900, but something of the special American flavour lingered on into this century in, for instance, the Buster Brown coloured supplements, and even in Booth Tarkington’s “Penrod” stories, which will have been written round about 1910. Perhaps there was even a tinge of it in Ernest Thompson Seton’s animal books (Wild Animals I Have Known, etc), which have now fallen from favour but which drew tears from the pre-1914 child as surely as Misunderstood had done from the children of a generation earlier.

Of course, Orwell felt that that earlier American tradition was far superior to what was being produced in his own day:

English children are still americanised by way of the films, but it would no longer be generally claimed that American books are the best ones for children. Who, without misgivings, would bring up a child on the coloured “comics” in which sinister professors manufacture atomic bombs in underground laboratories while Superman whizzes through the clouds, the machine-gun bullets bouncing off his chest like peas, and platinum blondes are raped, or very nearly, by steel robots and fifty-foot dinosaurs? It is a far cry from Superman to the Bible and the woodpile. The earlier children’s books, or books readable by children, had not only innocence but a sort of native gaiety, a buoyant, carefree feeling, which was the product, presumably, of the unheard-of freedom and security which nineteenth-century America enjoyed. That is the connecting link between books so seemingly far apart as Little Women and Life On The Mississippi. The society described in the one is subdued, bookish and home-loving, while the other tells of a crazy world of bandits, gold mines, duels, drunkenness and gambling hells: but in both one can detect an underlying confidence in the future, a sense of freedom and opportunity.

https://orwell.ru/library/reviews/bangor/english/e_bangor

Your logic is flawed. South African blacks should be boring assholes too then. If they were given a separate part of america where they wouldn’t interact with whites and thus maintain an inferiority complex you might possibly be right if you ignore all other indicators about africa but the murder rate (which I’m not going to bother to look up but ill just assume you are correct), but that’s very unlikely to happen. They would also need to have their memories erased. Sadly this technology does not yet exist.

Is this a close depiction of your life?

I’m willing to take your word for it. If it took me as long to sell my house as it did to read Mr. Melville’s Opus, I’d be angry and depressed too. I hope things are much sunnier for you now.

PROGRESSIVES NEED TO BE HUNG AND QUARTERED BY THEIR OWN POLICIES. Democrats need to be killed en masse by fire – they tortured children and they need to die.

I think you’re holding out on us. C’mon, spit it out. Don’t hold back. Tell us what you really think.

Whoa, lady. How many martinis have you had today?

Try reading Moby Dick when you are angry and depressed- While trying to sell your house – It’s much better in that atmosphere.

… your “lived experience.”

I thought it was “Speaking your truth.”

As for the MAA, perhaps it is time to appoint “Math is hard” Barbie as its executive director.

oops, I really hate, hate, hate people!!! – but they are mean and probably are pedos, so, whatever. Democrats and many Republicans need to be executed. They do not deserve to live because they killed and tortured children or ingested the blood of tortured children – we have the photos and film – Surprise!!!!

fuck you. JFK Kennedy (Edward had some serious daddy/brother issues) never felt there were issues that were alarming to cause riots in the early 60’s – his baby brother, loser, drinker, pedo, womanizer, the traitor, stirred those up – it is all about money – who gave you the money to buy/restore/salvage your property.

Senator Edward Kennedy, Jr. is to blame FOR EVERYTHING SINCE DONALD TRUMP. PROGRESSIVES NEED TO BE HUNG AND QUARTERED BY THEIR OWN POLICIES. Democrats need to be killed en masse by fire – they tortured children and they need to die.

do you really think you could go back; or some other of your live-long friend’s goes back to pick up mistakes?!? – wtf!!!- grow up if you are younger than me or Steve or several other substantive, very young reporters!!!!!!grrrrrr I am just a housewife, so whatevah!!! hahhahahaha

I’m not going to try to read a novel by an Englishman named St. Aubyn until I am sure how his name is pronounced.

With the greatest of respect, that’s the stupidest (but also the funniest) thing I’ve ever read. Today.

Speaking as an English literature graduate (and all-round nice guy), I’m happy enough to help to put you out of your misery. Old-fashioned as it may be, the name is correctly pronounced (at least, by me) exactly as it looks – “saint-OR-bin”.

You’re welcome.

Did Ted Kennedy think there were too many White People in America in 1965?

Kennedy had been in Congress for just three years when that legislation was passed. He was also a lightweight. The principal senate sponsor of the bill was Sen. Philip Hart.

The Han People of China let an Obama Official at a Chinese Airport know about Han Race Power and Han Supremacy….God Bless the Chinese Nazi People in China!!!

Native White Folks in America need to be no more…no less RACIST than the wonderful Nazi Chinese People of China….if they were…they would never have allowed the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act to be repealed….and never have to experience the wrath of Chinese race power in US Election Voting Booths on Nov 3 2020…

And, if I may, one final word on White Supremacy:

yes.

There’s a Pappus Chain in there somewhere ….and even a Coxeter Loxodr0mic Tangent Sequence….all you need are three semicircles….don’t forget the beautiful Arbelos…

Happy, there’s more to it than that, and since I forgot to add some info. to Mr. Derbyshire’s take on textbook inflation, I will now.

Look, there are editions of engineering Statics/Dynamics book that have nothing different from their predecessors than the homework problems. It ain’t like Newton’s laws have changed since the last one, and BTW, even the homework problems are not different, but just in a different order. (i.e. problem 6 is now problem 21, etc…) You’d think, with the internet and the software we have, there’d be great sites for trading, making much better deals than back in the day, when you’d get less than 50% the book stores for your once-used book, then pay 75-90% back on the re-sale of others back in the day.

Why can’t this happen? It’s because the publishers use computer codes to lock you out. See, you get a DVD with the book that has some extra work of some sort. That thing has a code. The professor requires one to work the problems or do assignments that are DVD based. You need to use that DVD, or you can’t get a good grade. Next semester, code no workey! Why does the professor require the DVD then? That’s because he’s part of that system, and maybe even the author of some of these.Peak Stupidity discussed all this in“The Great University Textbook Scam” a few years back.

LOL andThanks, Bardon. The thanks is for saving me a trip to the library.

;-}

White women are substantially less likely to be woke than white men. Wokeness threatens white women and pedestalizes nonwhite women. Kind of like white men do.

I generally catch Tucker Carlson’s show on Fox News, and cheer him when he takes a stand against the anarchist mobs and nation-wreckers. (Although I wish he’d stop saying “skin color” as a euphemism for “race.” Yo, Tucker, Check this out.)

It’s not really a euphemism — it’s a deliberate rhetorical fallback position. The motte to the social constructivist bailey. “OK, perhaps therearecertainvery minor differences between the races, but they’re literally skin-deep and have no larger significance.”

“Write about what you know,” is the advice given to young writers … The only thing you’re supposed to know nowadays is your own precious self, your—what’s the cant expression? oh, right—your“lived experience.”

Yep. The woke rationalization for that starts with what is now old-time“standpoint epistemology”. Wiki says that this is:

…the notion that the perspectives of marginalized and/or oppressed individuals can help to create more objective accounts of the world. Through the outsider-within phenomenon, these individuals are placed in a unique position to point to patterns of behavior that those immersed in the dominant group culture are unable to recognize.

In other words, from the anti-White standpoint, officially-designated “victim” groups [say, females or indigenous non-White subalterns] have an“epistemic advantage” relative to officially designated “oppressor” groups [like males or White “colonizers”]. Because of their “outsider” position, “victims” are able to analyze the behavior of oppressor groups in an relatively objective manner, while “oppressors” who attempt to analyze the behavior of victims are not only hopelessly subjective, but are clearly “anti-victimites” who are motivated solely by a dangerous form of hatred termed “anti-victimism.”

Hey, this kind of sounds familiar — almost as if it’s a reworked version of a trope that dates back to well before 3rd wave feminism. I wonder if Palestinians in Israel have much of an “epistemic advantage?” Or is there an unprincipled exception for that particular case?

Anyway, standpoint theory has been superseded by the currently-hegemonic anti-White doctrine ofintersectionality, which differs in at least 2 major ways from standpoint theory:

1. While standpoint theory is largely one-dimensional/ binary — male/ female, indigenous/ colonizer, etc., intersectionality looks at multiple axes [male/ female, White/ non-White, tranny/ normal, etc.] for each person in order to generate an overall victim point total.

2. Standpoint theory admits thepossibilityof objectivity, while intersectionality goes full Foucaulteverythingis subjective “discourses.”

But it retains the concept of “lived experience,” and it’s central to ideological enforcement/ suppressing heresy.By definition, of course, the “lived experience” of White male goyim is automatically invalid. But what if youarea member of an officially-designated victim group, but you happen to disagree with important aspects of the One True Ideology?

Well then, clearly you’re suffering from “false consciousness”, i.e. internalized oppression internalized racism/ internalized sexism/ internalized whiteness or whatever… andyourlived experience doesn’t counteither.

If this sounds to you like an elaborate maze of pilpul intended to disguise a simple, straightforward concept like: “Anyonewho disagrees with our ideology isautomaticallywrong; their opinion is invalid andmustbe suppressed”… then clearly you’re just not woke enough, bigot.

Princeton eliminates Greek, Latin requirements for Classics majors to combat ‘racism’

https://thepostmillennial.com/princeton-eliminates-greek-latin-requirements-for-classics-majors-to-combat-racism

You know, it’s a big industry flipping textbooks for college students. I’ll go to my old college which is in my hometown every once in a while to use the library and see how things have changed and hang out, and I’ve noticed there’s actually a little van that goes around at the end of each semester and they set up a little booth and students come and sell their books to them and they give them prorated prices for books, depending on what they think they can sell them for on the internet. It’s a full blown business model!

I myself have made a cottage industry of selling Pharr’s Aeneid online. That’s the Premier Latin version of the Aeneid for learning students. There are a lot of Catholic schools where I live, and Latin is still part of the curriculums so these books sort of trickle into the used bookstores in the area. I typically pick them up for a few dollars and then flip them online for $30-$50 depending on the condition. I’ve always thought about that, that if I were particularly strapped the thing to do would be to go and buy them from the students at the end of the semester or year as they were getting out.

Great diary as usual.

Who buys the high cover price academic texts? Easy, academic libraries and departments all over the country, and probably all over the world. They have huge budgets and price is no issue to them. Professors have allowances to buy books in many schools and they order them up.

Crime and Punishment- Dude whacks a porn granny, then feels guilty. He hooks up with a teen pro, but a cop gets him. Actually, he’s a loser and soy boy , so who cares …

War and Peace- French invade Russia, like in “Panzer General”. Russkies are tough, so French get their asses whipped. It’s cold and snows all the time, and ppl are talking about some weird stuff on whys of that all and sometimes have sex.

The Old Man and the Sea – Some Hispanic guy goes on fishing, and fishing, and fishing, and fishing …..

Ulysses- A Jewish slob goes around in Dublin, Ireland and snoops on everything. His bitch is banging another dude, and some loser townie guy always rants about church and stuff. Slob and loser become friends, and you don’t understand anything because the book is written by a fucked up Mick.

Moby Dick- A Yankee loon puts together a crew of third world coons and some Yankee meatheads and they go after a whale that had taken a snack of loon’s leg. Whale smashes them, like Godzilla vs any city. They deserve it because they talk all the time about sea, fishes and stuff. No broads abroad, so no action.

The Iliad- A Greek gold-digging slut goes with another Greek dude, but from another town. Her ex mans up and goes to war with that city to punish the bitch and get some plunder. The story is mostly about some dude who is Brad Pitt and the guy from the city had whacked his homie, so Pitt, who is gay, cannot get laid anymore.

Don Quijote- A crazy tall skinny guy goes with fat short fellow in search of something. They are beaten by local rednecks, but they won’t give up. All the time they talk shit and at the end tall guy dies, just to finish this goddamn book. There is Rosie O’Donnell in this book, but she is a horse.

In the Western world today those universal inclinations are directed by the widespread desire among white people, especially white women, to kneel and abase themselves before other races, to denounce their own ancestors and belittle all their achievements.

Unlike tough white men who kneel and abase themselves before Jews.

Video Link

It’s not just lefties but people on the economic right also need to face reality.

For example in his bookDead Aid Niall Ferguson believes that countries south of the Sahara can be as prosperous as Chinese-dominated Singapore if they made better “choices” i.e., adopted free market enterprise according to the gospel of Adam Smith.

Civic nationalism is silly. Aside from Northern Europeans nearly every other group is into kith and kin.

This is how America’s founding stock was dispossessed by organized Jewry. Upper caste Indians are following the same script in areas like Silicon Valley.

The fundamental problem with women is misplaced empathy which under normal Darwinistic conditions is for offspring. With the decline of traditional religions this is increasingly being directed towards social justice causes.

Thanks to technological advances it takes also a few farmers to feed millions. You have even fewer boffins inventing creature comforts powered by “cheap” energy from fossil fuels. As a result people have lots of time for self-indulgence be it feminism, sexual perversions or climate change fanatism.

You can contrast the above with most third world countries where kids, especially males, are consider a pension plan and impotence is a social stigma.

Pontius Pilate was right on the button: “what is truth?”

I thought there was something a bit musty, a bit dated about the scenery that might have put publishers off.

I mean, New Age? Really? Is that still a thing worth lampooning? Was it, even in 1998?

And then, sex. The last thirty or so pages of the novel concern a weekend workshop in Tantric sex … lots of it, very explicitly described. Again, is that still a thing in novels?

Hell, in some circles “it’s still a thing” in real life. Check out Jamie Morgan’s 2007 documentary The Workshop, about a seminar held in northern California (where else?) by some elderly Brummie guru named Paul. A disturbing number of those attending are English.

Brainteaser. I have parked two semicircles inside a circle, as shown. What looks to be the case, is the case: AB and CD are parallel, E is a single point of contact.

Is that two birds kissing, or the profile of the Jetsons’ housemaid?

But it brings up a question I have for any geologists or structural engineers who may be reading: Would a perfectly round basement be stronger, weaker, or just the same as a rectangular one?

A handyman who specializes in basement repair on Long Island wrote how a number of his clients had curved walls in theirs. They told him the original owners built them that way to repel witches. He didn’t say where those owners were from; he assumed they’d come through Ellis Island. But weren’t the Puritans and Dutch who settled the Island just as superstitious?

My most entertaining read of the month was Jill Tweedie’s memoir…

Jill’s last appearance in the top 1000 names given to American newborn girls was in the 20th century. Jillian and Gillian, once very rare here, have appeared more recently. How are they faring in the UK?

In the Western world today those universal inclinations are directed by the widespread desire among white people, especially white women, to kneel and abase themselves before other races, to denounce their own ancestors and belittle all their achievements.

The Cosby allegations resurfaced after a 12-year hiatus when a comedian, Hannibal Buress, used them in his night-club act. Was Barbara Bowman a ditzy blonde in her reaction, or just being careful?

Nov. 13, 2014: Bowman writes an op-ed in the Washington Post titled, “Bill Cosby raped me. Why did it take 30 years for people to believe my story?” She notes that “only after a man” called Cosby out did the public begin to take the allegations seriously.

https://www.tvguide.com/news/bill-cosby-rape-allegations-timeline-1089629/

Only after aman? Or only after a black? True, a third of Coz’s victims were black, or at least mulatta, but how many of them were out front about it in 2005?

What is to be done? Murray’s prescription is civic nationalism.

That term certainly exhibits more euphony than Steve Sailer’scitizenism. How about turning it around, like a gem in the hand?National civics has a nice ring to it.

“Prove that, within the larger circle, the shaded area is equal to the non-shaded area; in other words, that the sum of the areas of the two semicircles is half the area of the big circle.”

I don’t have the math to prove it, but looking at it intuitively, if I had to guess true or false whether the shaded area was equal to the non-shaded area, I’d have to guess “true”.

Whenever you have two semi-circles within a circle and they have parallel lines and a single contact point, as long as A, E and D form a straight line, and B, E and C form a straight line, then they are equal.

Is my intuition wrong?

Wuthering Heights was one of the first classics I read. It was a tough slog at first, but I loved the story. And the theme song from the movie is beautiful.

I meant 1/2 * (r2 – r1). r1 + epsilon = r2 – epsilon = r3 (where epsilon is the center of the circle for r3). So I meant 1/2 * (r2 – r1) for the common y-coordinate of the 2 semicircles.

For the math problem, call the upper circle’s radius r1, the lower r2, and the larger r3. Translate the r1 and r2 circles to common axes (r2-r1 away from the r3 circle y-axis). Consider the r2 on the translated x-axis and r1 on the translated y-axis. The hypotenuse of that right triangle is r3. So r1^2 + r2^2 = r3^2. And therefore:

1/2* pi * r1^2 + 1/2* pi * r2^2 = 1/2* pi * r3^2

q.e.d.

Having read both the Classics Illustrated version and the actual book, I can recommend not bothering with Moby Dick in either form. A very long walk for a drink of water.
I re-read O’Brian’s Aubrey-Maturin novels when I hanker for some beautifully written reactionary fiction.

I know Murray’s done some excellent work, but I still don’t like him. The snotty bitch ran his mouth a while back, trying to deflect, saying that he’d rather be living in a Hispanic slum than a similar “white bread” community. Yeah right.

Meanwhile, Bitch Boi actually lives in a community in rural Maryland that’s 99.3% White per the latest census.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_St_Aubyn#Personal_background_and_education

Edward St Aubyn was born in 1960 in London, England, into an upper-class family. He is the son of Roger Geoffrey St Aubyn (1906–1985), a former soldier and a surgeon, and his second wife, Lorna Mackintosh (1929–2005). On his paternal side, he is a great-great grandson of Sir Edward St Aubyn, 1st Baronet, and great-nephew of The 1st Baron St Levan. On his maternal side, he is a grandson of Captain Alastair William Mackintosh of the Seaforth Highlanders (briefly married to Constance Talmadge 1926–1927),[1] and Lela Emery (later Duchess of Talleyrand). Through the latter he is a great-grandson of American businessman John Josiah Emery, Sr., and a great-nephew of John J. Emery, Jr. and Audrey Emery (wife of Grand Duke Dmitri Pavlovich of Russia).[2][3]

His father was first married to Sophie Helene Freifrau von Puthon of Schloss Mirabell in Salzburg, whom he divorced in 1957. St Aubyn has two half-sisters by his father’s first marriage, and an elder sister, Alexandra.[3] He grew up in London and France, where his family had houses.[4] He has described an unhappy childhood in which he was repeatedly raped by his sexually abusive father from the ages of 5 to 8, with the complicity of his mother.[4][5]

St Aubyn attended Westminster School and in 1979 went on to read English at Keble College, Oxford. Although at the time a heroin addict, he graduated, but with a pass, the lowest possible class of degree.[4][6] He entered psychotherapy at the age of 25 and subsequently became a professional writer.

From 1987 to 1990, he was married to the author Nicola Shulman, now The Marchioness of Normanby.[3] St Aubyn has a son, Lucian St Aubyn, by Jane Longman, daughter of Lady Elizabeth Longman and Mark Longman, and a daughter, Eleanor St Aubyn by another previous relationship, and lives in London.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_St_Aubyn#Patrick_Melrose_series

Five of St Aubyn’s novels,Never Mind,Bad News,Some Hope,Mother’s Milk, andAt Last, form The Patrick Melrose Novels, the first four of which were republished in a single volume in 2012, in anticipation of the fifth. They are based on the author’s own life, growing up in a highly dysfunctional upper-class English family, dealing with abuse at the hands of his father, the deaths of both parents, alcoholism, heroin addiction and recovery, and marriage and parenthood.[7]

The books have been hailed as a powerful exploration of how emotional health can be carved out of childhood adversity.[8]

Mother’s Milk was made into a feature film released in 2011. The screenplay was written by St Aubyn and director Gerald Fox. It stars Jack Davenport, Adrian Dunbar, Diana Quick, and Margaret Tyzack in her last performance.

In 2018 a five-part television series,Patrick Melrose was broadcast, a joint production of Showtime and Sky Atlantic. Benedict Cumberbatch stars as Patrick Melrose (with the young Patrick played by Sebastian Maltz), with each episode based on a different novel in the series. The series premiered on Showtime on 12 May 2018 to favourable reviews.[9]

Roger Ebert, concluding his review of “About Schmidt”:

“Most teenagers will probably not be drawn to this movie, but they should attend. Let it be a lesson to them. If they define their lives only in terms of a good job, a good paycheck and a comfortable suburban existence, they could end up like Schmidt, dead in the water. They should start paying attention to that crazy English teacher.”

Good advice. But that was written in 2002. These days, most likely that English teacher uses a curriculum that has been, to use Harvard’s absurd term, “refreshed.”

By the way, Mr. Derb, your self-appraisal is probably correct when you write that your brain is probably too formally structured to highly excel at comparative literature. The superior comparative-literature brain possesses, to use the term that neuroscientists sometimes use, “exuberant synapses.” But nonetheless, your columns are highly loose-brained when it comes to culture and politics.

I’m not going to try to read a novel by an Englishman named St. Aubyn until I am sure how his name is pronounced.
Sometimes you see an English name like that and find out the pronunciation is nothing like the spelling. I don’t want to embarrass myself by trying to tell people I read a good novel by so-and-so, only to find out my pronunciation is laughably wrong, and St. Aubyn is pronounced as “Swan” or something like that.

My school teacher parents gave me a hundred Classics Illustrated comic books as a Christmas present as a child to try to improve my reading taste a little by luring me away from the Batman and Superman comic books I was reading all the time. I think it worked. The selections were pretty good as far as appealing to a boy, much better than what is forced on boys these days. Some of them have faded away as being considered classics likeKing of the Khyber Rifles orUnder Two Flags but were entertaining. Many of them seemed to have been taken as much from the old Hollywood movie versions of them as the books themselves.

My other childhood exposure to literary classics were a couple dozen Mr. Magoo versions that ran on television in the nineteen sixties. These had Mr. Magoo playing characters inDon Quixote,A Christmas Carol,Moby Dickand so on. After having read the Classics Illustrated version ofMoby Dickand watched the Mr. Magoo version ofMoby Dick I feel like I don’t need to read the book.

LOL!

(But thanks for spoiling Don Quixote for me – I hadn’t read that yet!)

Neither of the two truths in Murray’s title will surprise VDARE.com readers. In the author’s own words, from the book’s introduction:
The first is that American Whites, Blacks, Latinos, and Asians, as groups, have different means and distributions of cognitive ability. The second is that American Whites, Blacks, Latinos, and Asians, as groups, have different rates of violent crime.

I’ll just use this as an excuse to paste in an opinion from a week back on the subject.
https://www.unz.com/anepigone/agree-and-amplify/#comment-4674616
Which hopefully enlarges the context to which many even red-pilled westerners remain kind of blind.

**

The average Albanian has the average IQ of a US Negro (different figures are available, but it’s always around 80+).

BTW excellent dispatches right now being written from there by Mr. Dinh.
https://www.unz.com/author/linh-dinh/

Likewise Montenegro, charming little Slavic Orthodox place on the Adriatic, has the same average IQ.

Bosnia.

Iran and Pakistan are also there. Sri Lanka has an average IQ of 79, and is an absolutely splendid little place.

It is perhaps impossible to contribute anything serious to modern civilization with an average IQ around 80, but it’s more than possible to maintain a normal basic level of civilization circa 1970.

This is IQ-wise. Now let’s see behavior-wise.

If we look at the homicide data for sub-Saharan Africa, then in places in which there’s no actual war or famine, which today thankfully means the majority of the continent, we’ll see that the only African blacks who behave like US blacks are the South African blacks.

They too are surrounded by the crumbling remains of the best infrastructure on their continent, they too try to convince themselves “I built this”, and they too are constantly encouraged to spend their lives not taking responsibility, lashing out, and blaming the remaining 10% whites for everything.

And getting back to Russia, here is their eruption into South Africa/Guatemala levels of homicide, between the collapse of the USSR and Putin’s system retaking control.

It doesn’t even matter if the more peaceable levels are the “natural state” and the explosion of violence was an “aberration”, or if the violence is the “natural state”, and the peaceable levels are “suppression”. What matter is that either way it is possible to control it, when there is political will. And when this happens, it takes about a single generation to fix things.

So we’ve got:
1) US black IQ level countries doing OK
2) Most African blacks being less violent (in peacetime) than South African and US blacks
3) The post-Soviet example of the reality of halting and reversing the slide into Mad Max

The thug subclass of the US Negro is no doubt “subhuman” in the sense of dimwit sadistic scum, but white English Chavs, Slavic gopniks, and almost every society has a class of subhuman sadistic dimwits. Sometime this class overlaps with a specific ethnicity (just like in some place specific professions also overlap with specific ethnicities–taxi drivers, shopkeepers, bankers etc), and sometimes it goes across ethnic lines and is truly a “socioeconomic class” phenomenon.

Thus, the US Negro may have severe hardwired limitations concerning cognition and processing speed, but these limitations are also present in South East Europe and a bunch of other countries which are either doing fine, or on the verge of doing fine. Especially if, like Cuba and Iran, certain world powers give them a break.

So from the IQ point of view, having a US Negro chunk of the population is equal to having a South Slavic or Persian or Cuban chunk of the population.

From the impulsivity and violence point of view, this is more a question of the environment. In the “normal black African” places, they’ve got a functioning cultural substrata (family, neighborhood, village, church) community social structures, which in the west have been dismantled, and replaced either with made up “identity groups” or with prison gang culture.

This organic substrata is one half of what keeps sadistic dimwits in check. The other half is an external structure of law and order enforced by state institutions.

Additionally you’ve got the informational media context: does TV and other media encourage subhuman behavior in the relevant demographic group, or does it discourage it?

Upon the collapse of the USSR, you had the perfect storm:
1) the organic social substrata had been dismantled by the Soviet state, which took upon itself these functions, but then collapsed, leaving a barren landscape
2) the external institutional enforcement of law and order became for a while almost non-existent due to general demoralization, disorganization, and corruption
3) the media environment focused on building up the image of the heroic gangsta

It took Putin some time to be able to quietly reverse all three: to plan the seeds of new organic substrata; to reorganize the law and order enforcement; and to get the media to stop celebrating antisocial behavior.

Also, concerning blacks, in England, for example, there is still no concentrated push that expecting blacks to do well in school is “racist”, thus they do way better than US blacks.
https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/education-skills-and-training/11-to-16-years-old/a-to-c-in-english-and-maths-gcse-attainment-for-children-aged-14-to-16-key-stage-4/latest

Right now, globohomo maintains US blacks in an artificially amplified copy of the 1990s Russia situation: encouraging them to have no organic social structures aside from gang such; discouraging law and order to control them; celebrating everything antisocial and immoral.

The moment this starts getting reversed, the US blacks will begin gradually piping down, and ten years later will be just boring assholes. But until this happens, they will be a lethal tool for their handlers.

Correctly noted Mr. D’shire – the worst-of-the-worst White fools are women, probably by a large margin. And furthermore, if White women (who make the babies you see) turn their backs on civilization, not all the George Washingtons or Robert E. Lees who ever lived can save us.

Regarding catching up on the classics the easy way, here you go:

[ITEM 3:] I agree on “who cares?!” Bioerror or Bioterror is not the big issue. The issue is how planned out was the PanicFest that has been set up to take away even more rights of Americans and implement1984-with-better-electronics in China, who planned it out, and how did Americans (at least) get so hysterical and cowardly that they willing went into LOCKDOWNs and are TO THIS DAY, walking around IN BROAD DAYLIGHT with face diapers on?“Menopause Nation, better run and hide. So scared to live. So scared to die.”

[ITEM 6:] You did mention at the end that the situation may improve with that math magazine. You’ve already let it go too long. Some people need to put up with this stuff because it’s part of their jobs. Steve Sailer, for instance, reads theNY Times so we don’t have to. It’s part of his job to point out the stupidity.You, Mr. Derbyshire, may like math, but it’s not your job. Why had you not cancelled your subscription at the first sign of this? That magazine will have no reason to stop this, if people like you don’t quit paying them to treat you like this. I doubt it’s gonna get any better.

[ITEM 9:] I think I’m getting somewhere! (In my head, at least – not on paper yet.)

[ITEM 1:]

You can applaud that[Civic Nationalism] —and I do—as coming from a generous, good-hearted patriot and seeker after truth. You can also mock it—and many on our side of the fence surely will—as a naive civ-nat “bravery signaller” murmuring emollient words into a howling gale of unreason.

I don’t think the two views are completely contradictory. One can hold both.

I assume a Constitutionalist would be considered the former. Sure, we SHOULD be able to all get along, but as for the reasons of the huge conflicts, some can hold views of nurture being responsible and others nature. Either way, it’s not ours and the Feral Gov’t’s jobs to fix these things. A Civic Nationalist can argue in good conscience against almost any lawmaking out of the Feral and most States’ governments since the mid 1960s. The alt-right scoffers would be glad to hear “turn it all back to 1964.”

My point is that one doesn’t have to play nice as a Civic Nationalist. The alt-right is correct in noting that the right will have to play hardball to win. That doesn’t mean that after the troubles coming are over we shouldn’t forget what made America great. Both groups see the anarcho-tyranny and the Orwellian State arrayed against us in every institution. We can work within the system, but our system is different from what the ctrl-left’s current version is. If they won’t play in OUR system, THEY are the ones off the rails and should be dealt with with extreme prejudice. Nice guys will not win this one.

Is there any topic that is not biased and racist to the egalitarian Left?
Mathematics follows: So now, you and I have the same amount of money.
How much must I give you so that you have ten dollars more than me?
Perhaps the mathematicians can find bias in this puzzle.

Probability of both 1&2 ChinesCorana vaccination success is 90%.
If we take both 1&2 vaccine, then what’s the probability of Success percentage?

We see this on the aftermath of the stolen presidential election. The right wing colors within the lines and earnestly depends on the system to deliver our constitutional rights. The left wing bribes, threatens, uses Soros and Gates money, or whatever it does, but it’s managed to buy all our judges including Trump’s SCOTUS appointees. That’s because while we’re burnishing our “constitutional” feelings, they fight dirty and win.

In the end all that matters is that they won. Principles don’t win battles. Winning does. Somehow the left finds lots of little things to do that actually matter, while we’re distracted with our own bull****.

They’re math teachers. They call themselves mathematicians, but nobody else would.

Math teachers, dooming yet more high school students to watered down and confusing math instruction, where the most able will be the most frustrated.

Cancel your subscription. I look forward to hearing about your sensible and practical step in an upcoming article.

Since you are an insecure and poisonous termagant, I refer you to your previous pathetic vituperations; every single one an ad hominem.

“Shut up, you insufferable pig.”

“But you’re not a grateful and decent person.”

“You are a pathetic sophist who pretends not to understand what is self-evident to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.”

“And FWIW, I think you’re full of sh!t about rights.”

((Yawn….))

And then, your statement about my putative “false airs of superiority” is a straw man, because it is an attempt to misrepresent what I said, because I neither said nor implied anything about anyone’s superiority.

Lol because normal people are in the habit of calling others “unwashed.”

Since you seem to struggle with the essential nature of the ad hominem, I would refer you to the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy:

13. The ad hominem fallacy involves bringing negative aspects of an arguer, or their situation, to bear on the view they are advancing. There are three commonly recognized versions of the fallacy. The abusive ad hominem fallacyinvolves saying that someone’s view should not be accepted because they have some unfavorable property. (Emphasis mine.)

Thompson’s proposal for the wetlands may safely be rejected because last year she was arrested for hunting without a license.

Furthermore, Madame, the exchange of insults is exactly ad hominem; nothing, in fact, could be more ad hominem.

And then, your statement about my putative “false airs of superiority” is a straw man, because it is an attempt to misrepresent what I said, because I neither said nor implied anything about anyone’s superiority.

It’s no wonder that others here egg you on. You provoke that kind of response; you do it to yourself.

Splutter away, please. It’s entertaining. And it reveals what can only be a profound insecurity.

I now agree with others here who attempt to reason with you. You, Madame, are the one reeking of excrement while you stridently deny it, yet you still stink.

Enjoy that petard; it just exploded in your face. That’ll teach me to attempt to reason with the Unwashed.

Please, fling invective all you want; I will enjoy the humour in not bothering to respond to you.

As for your personal opinion about rights…Carlin has you completely beaten. But please, disagree publicly; it will only add to the humour.

Madame, I would have been happy to explain further, but not when such explanation is demanded with an imperious and peremptory imperative, like this: “Explain yourself.”

I refuse.

Here again you are conspicuously selective in your scolding of people. I refused to respond to an “imperious demand,” and you attacked me for it. Now, you will not even answer for your own conduct.

I will give you a hint though. Ad hominem always loses the argument, no matter who uses it. See the hint?

For all your false airs of superiority, you don’t understand what the ad hominem fallacy is. Not every insult is an ad hominem. An ad hominem is an attack on a person with the intent of discrediting them or their position. I think Realist is an obnoxious troll. I am not saying that to undermine his credibility. Rather, he told me his opinion of me, and I answered in kind. That is not an ad hominem.

And FWIW, I think you’re full of sh!t about rights. I take the view that we are “endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights.”

Madame, I would have been happy to explain further, but not when such explanation is demanded with an imperious and peremptory imperative, like this: “Explain yourself.”

I refuse.

And that’s a shame, because I would have liked to. I will give you a hint though. Ad hominem always loses the argument, no matter who uses it. See the hint?

Besides, if I explained it all, you would not have the pleasure of figuring it out for yourself, and you wouldn’t remember it either. That’s why the Socratic method works best. Hence the hint.

A good, but far too quick, introduction on logical fallacies can be had here:

Note that the presenter is a young woman, not that that matters one little bit.

As for “women’s rights”, I also refuse to define it or even to discuss it, because there are no rights, whatsoever. No one has “rights”, no man, no woman, no minority, no one at all. We have privlleges, which we either allow one another out of courtesy, or we wrest from government by force. After all, a people should not fear their government; a government should fear its people. Talking about non-existent rights merely divides us, and a divided people is nothing to fear.

Here’s the one and only, inimitable, Chief Leprechaun (and I mean that as a great compliment) himself: George Carlin. About 4:24 is when he sets us straight about “rights.”

The rabbit hole goes deeper! I checked out Yun Kang’s resume (the mainland chinese person you mentioned) and she’s not a mathematician at all! All her papers are applied.

https://isearch.asu.edu/sites/default/files/cv/KangY-Vitae2020_0.pdf

Hmmmm…Lurie is working hard on that…. we’ll see …. Although, I don’t think that this is solvable in principle. Simply, the question is metaphysical.

http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=35461992FB356304538AF14C51DC4647

https://www.quantamagazine.org/with-category-theory-mathematics-escapes-from-equality-20191010/

Don’t underestimate our ability to make progress. What seemed hopeless when Fourier broke calculus led to the invention of analysis. It took some time but we made it.

Similar things are very likely to happen with set theory and the whole constructive maths debate. Maybe category theory will point us toward something better?

That student is a jackass. Mozart and Haydn are white, yes. Duke Ellington, a black man, and a genius musician had so much in common with Haydn. Both wrote for their own orchestras and adapted the parts so every musician could sound their best. John Coltrane and Charlie Parker, two of the greatest jazz improvisers of all time felt a closeness to the music of Bach, himself an improviser and a white man. How many white men contributed to jazz besides Dave Brubeck, Stan Getz and a hand full of others? Not as many as black who dominated jazz. The greatest of them all IMHO Thelonius Monk was black.

Instead of looking for racism behind every corner and learning ever more sophisticated ways to be offended, that student should pull their head out of their self righteous ass and concentrate on learning music in all its variety, from all the times, wherever it comes from. Then, when they’ve finally learned something they’ll realize they too have a part of it. Music is something that unites us all. Not one star can go missing from the musical firmament without everyone losing. Instead of focusing on victim hood focus on excellence. Look at the many examples of black excellence out there and work your ass off until you become excellent too. Of course, that means hard work and dedication. Is that student up for it or do they want to stand around whining with their pants far too low?

The Broadway show Hamilton is top notch IMO. Excellent music, very black, very skilled and in many ways more truthful and informed than the version of American history that everybody learns in our public schools. In Hamilton, the center of the American revolution was New York not Boston as commonly taught. Well, that’s true. The American revolution really centered around New York! But that’s a topic for another day.

Ad hominem is always a fallacy, and use of a fallacy always loses the argument (by definition really), provided that one cares about logical reasoning. If one doesn’t, then invective becomes the norm. And that’s where you are hoisted by that petard: you undo your own argument.

Realist: “Logic is really alien to you.”

Me: “You are a pathetic sophist who pretends not to understand what is self-evident to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.”

You: “Ad hominem always loses the argument.”

Explain yourself. Why attack me for responding to an insult with an insult?

. If all you see is taunting and harassment, then point it out by all means, but don’t let your argument rest there: counter with cold fact, closely reasoned, not opinion.

That is perfectly sound advice when dealing with a good-faith interlocutor, but prior dealings with Realist have made clear to me that he is not such. He asks stupid questions precisely to harass his interlocutor to keep her busy. I do not bark on command for the amusement of obnoxious trolls.

Realist’s lack of food faith should be obvious to you by the fact that he pretends not to understand the meaning of the term “women’s rights.” Now, if a reasonable person, such as yourself, I presume, asks me the explain the meaning of “women’s rights,” I will assume the question is asked in good faith and answer it.

If all men, 100% of them, stopped working for whatever reason, voluntarily, involuntarily, it doesn’t matter how, then civilization would end.

If all women, 100% of them, stopped working, quit the paid workforce for whatever reason, voluntarily, involuntarily, it doesn’t matter how, then civilization would do just fine even better, at most a brief period of adjustment and inconvenience.

If all women, 100% of them, decided caring for children wasn’t for them, for whatever reason, voluntarily, involuntarily, it doesn’t matter how, then civilization would end.

If all women, 100% of them, decided not become mothers for whatever reason, voluntarily, involuntarily, it doesn’t matter how, then civilization would end.

Men and women are DIFFERENT.

The same skills that make a woman expert at resolving conflicts with squabbling children during playtime become the skills that destroy the mathematical ability of generations of children when they are handed bureaucratic powers. They are trying to make math fair the same way they try to make the playground fair and it’s highly destructive.

There is a part of truth in that : a civilisation, so as to arise, needs 3% geniuses and 97% stupid slaves that never question any order or ritual habit and the Nile valley had just the right combination of a few whites together with a mass of browns to do that.

Seriously, who pretends not to understand what the term “women’s rights” means?

Seriously…why are you afraid to state what women’s rights are and more importantly…why do women have rights men don’t? Do you think women arespecial?

The MAA is the professional organization for the kind ladies who teach freshman calculus to pre-med students so that real mathematicians don’t have to.

The AMS is the professional organization for real mathematicians, but unfortunately it too is degenerating:

http://www.ams.org/news?news_id=6195

It turns out that Geometry and Algebra (capitalised on purpose) are two aspects of the same model. It’s called Geometric Algebra, and was discovered by Hermann Grassman and William Kingdon Clifford in the late 19th century.

So it’s actually disengenuous to present this false dichotomy:

“The algebra of Khwarizmi or the algebra of the Greeks?”

The answer is: both! Alhough I am here implying the “geometry of the Greeks” and not their algebra, because that’s what I think you meant.

It is also not true that algebra is the foundation of modern science, because Abstract Algebra (or Modern Algebra) is far more fundamental than Khwarizmi’s orignal algebra, which is not denigrating him at all: I have a great veneration for his work, and have read it in tranlsation. He was clearly far ahead of his time, and at the same time his algebra, alone, is not the foundation of modern science. There is no question that it was a huge breakthrough, just to be clear. But then, so was Eratosthenes’ estimate for the circumference of the Earth, calculated in the 3rd Century BC, to within 2% of the actual value, completely without the power of algebra.

On a personal note, I study Geometric Algebra for this very reason: it is the unifying language for math and physics. Look up David Hestenes, for instance. Brilliant work.

Straight algebra gives us Lagrange’s Mechanique Analytique, which is presented without a single diagram nor any appeal to geometric intuition. Straight geometry can be cumbersome, as witnessed by the Pythagorean struggle with the square root of 2.

Perhaps a bit more study might be in order. You will find that Mathematics is, and always will be, unpartisan.

(Aside: Geometric Algebra is completely different from Algebraic Geometry, which is what Andrew Wiles used to prove Fermat’s Last Theorem.)

You are perilously close to being hoisted by your own petard. If all you see is taunting and harassment, then point it out by all means, but don’t let your argument rest there: counter with cold fact, closely reasoned, not opinion.

If the argument doesn’t allow for that, then it’s not falsifiable, and thus consists only of an alternative opinion. That’s fine, of course, but you can’t convince anyone to change his opinion just because your opinion differs (and neither can your interlocutor change yours, by the way). That’s the petard you are lobbing.

Ad hominem is always a fallacy, and use of a fallacy always loses the argument (by definition really), provided that one cares about logical reasoning. If one doesn’t, then invective becomes the norm. And that’s where you are hoisted by that petard: you undo your own argument.

Agreed. It all takes away from the pursuit of excellence. As far as white identity politics go, etiam si omnes, ego non is my attitude, enhanced by the generally low human capital of white nationalists.

Yes, it did. Da Vinci was a perfectionist with possible ADHD, so you could imagine how algebra mistakes became frustrating. He also struggled with Latin on the right side of the brain. Being mostly self-educated, Leonardo was a self-described man of experience, which was a highly radical notion in his time, before Bacon and Galileo.

Re, artist vs. scientist, the distinction is not one he would have seen: the trend to specialization was centuries away. But during his later years, he was more consistently emotionally engaged with his scientific experiments than with painting, which was more hit or miss.

Maybe if the male-dominated science community had gone to bat for James Damore, a perfect gentleman in my opinion, women and men both would have a bit more courage about these things.

I think this is a fair comment. I spent a long time on the left, and now that I’m on the right, I miss the activism. I think lots of us supported Damore, though it felt like there was very little we could do. Last year I began boycotting Gillette, and now I’m boycotting soccer leagues for caving in to BLM, but it doesn’t feel like much because other than through the Internet, I have no connection with anyone else who is doing the same. Plus, not giving money to an entity feels empty compared with giving money. I wanted to do more, but other than complaining on the Internet, there seemed to be nothing that one could do.

Now think about how much people on the right hate our colleges and universities, yet no one has any plan to change things. I’d like to think that no one on the right contributes to their alma mater, but I don’t even know if that’s true. But should we all contribute to Hillsdale so that they become so rich they can start branches everywhere? Should we encourage some state legislature to start a new state university that is non-woke? Should we encourage some university in Eastern Europe to work to attract right-wing Americans who want to get away from the stifling atmosphere here in America? By now people on the right should have coalesced behind a plan, if not one of these, then something else, but possible plans are never even discussed.

It’s very frustrating.

Ad Hominem always loses the argument.

What argument? All I see is obtuse taunting and harassment. Seriously, who pretends not to understand what the term “women’s rights” means?

Well put. Those who possess a true inner self worth are above identity politics. That’s why I shun identity politics, except perhaps white identity politics, because it’s something that I see as a provoked defensive reaction to the course national politics has taken, i.e. since everyone else is doing it, we could become atomized if we do not likewise resort to identity based politics.

But all these LGTSQR whatever things are clearly meant to divide. All contemporary ID issues are either created to divide us or base imitation of some certain ruling class.

Did Leo fail at algebra? I would consider him an artist not a mathematician or scientist. I would not have thought algebra existed as a subject in that year.

Grrek civilization is derived from far older civilizations, most notably the civilization of Ancient Egypt in Africa, which was well over 2000 years old when Greek civilization began.

Two things must be kept in mind: first, gays have always been an extremely small part of the populace, media portrayals aside, and second, mathematicians and physicists are traditionally not the type to place the personal over the professional in terms of their self-conception.

That said, I have a rather weird example: I wouldn’t call him a mathematician in the modern sense, but Leonardo Da Vinci had an extreme flair for geometry. Absolutely failed at algebra, but his ability to visualize was truly unique and makes you wonder what he might have been capable of had he lived a few centuries later. Like Turing, Da Vinci neither proclaimed his sexuality to the stars, nor made any attempts to hide it: and since he lived in Renaissance Italy rather than post-WWII Britain, this worked out relatively better for him. He was perfectly fine with being homosexual, unlike, say, Michaelangelo: if you asked, he would have answered honestly and matter-of-factly. But if you asked him who he was, he would have said artist, military engineer, scientist, and above all, inventor, not “LGBT”.

In general, those who put things they didn’t do anything to attain, be it race, sexuality, gender, class, whatever as the primary pillar of who they are as human beings above what they attained or are building (be it a family or whatever), or what they are interested in, or what their personality traits are, etc, smack of inferiority. This extends even to the most anti-individualist markers you could envision, in cultures that try to destroy the conception of you as an individual rather than as a team-player: a Roman legionary identified with that because he earned it. Same with a Marine or a Spartan hoplite.

Sculpture, architecture, wheel…were not “invented” by any civilization specifically. They are universal.

Civilization itself was the invention of non-europeans. None of the earliest civilizations is located in Europe. And the last of the europeans to be civilized, the boastful northern europeans, invented nothing at all until just a handful of centuries ago.

In the case of old Greeks, we may summarize their achievement from 700-200 BCE

Grrek civilization is derived from far older civilizations, most notably the civilization of Ancient Egypt in Africa, which was well over 2000 years old when Greek civilization began.

Your lack of class is not conducive to any reasonable discussion of these matters.

You shouldn’t be talking about class. Class/caste is correctly judged by character. You are defending a liar and his lie. That makes you a person of low character, hence of low class.

That requires a ton of evidence.

That requires objectivity and intellectual honesty. Neither of which you possess. The evidence is staring you in the face:

Which numeral system was the foundation of modern science in Europe: the native Roman Numeral System or the imported Indian Decimal Numeral System?

Whose Algebra was the foundation of modern science? The algebra of Khwarizmi or the algebra of the Greeks? The very word ‘algebra’ gives you the answer.

4. Oh yeah, the SAT and ACT are also racist, so we must get rid of those too. And grammar. And Western Civ, and ….

Oh, well ….

https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2018/09/24/race-and-gender-studies-kick-shakespeare-out-of-class/

According to the course catalog, giants of English literature were irrelevant. but students must study “alternative rubrics of gender, sexuality, race, and class.”UCLA’s undergraduates, therefore, had to choose among courses like, “Women of Color in the U.S., Women and Gender in the Caribbean, Chicana Feminism, Studies in Queer Literatures and Cultures, and Feminist and Queer Theory.”

Likewise, at Columbia University, a black music undergraduate rebelled against the classics. “Why did I have to listen in music humanities to this Mozart? My problem with the core is that it upholds the premises of white supremacy and racism. It’s a racist core. Who is this Mozart, this Haydn, these superior white men? There are no women, no people of color.”

I would just like to clarify something about the number i. It is not quite correct to say that i is the square root of -1; it is actually a number that, when squared, equals -1.

That is, i^2 = -1.

There is quite a difference, and since this essay talks about math, then this is a good place to clarify things.

If we suppose that i = \sqrt{-1}, then this is what we get:

1 = \sqrt{1} = \sqrt{ 1 \times 1 } = \sqrt{ (-1)(-1) } = \sqrt{-1} \times \sqrt{-1} = i \times i = -1.

Therefore, making the assumption that i = \sqrt{-1} implies that 1 = -1, which is clearly false.

The problem is that the square root function is defined only for the positive real numbers; its domain excludes negative numbers. One cannot take the square root of a negative number.

One can, however, extend the real numbers into the complex numbers, with the assumption that i^2 = -1, but this last statement is often mistakenly interpreted when one says that i is the square root of -1. It isn’t. It is a number that, when squared, equals -1.

This is actually what provides the orthogonality which another commenter mentioned (quite correctly).

Since the article was about math, then I thought a comment involving math would be appropriate here.

Ad Hominem always loses the argument.