Re: [June-13-2011] Limit as x approaches infinity equals eth
Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2011 9:08 pm
Remind me again why there was a desire to encourage to non-regulars and unregistered users to post?
Proudly ignored since 1867
http://www.smbc-comics.com/smbcforum/
http://www.smbc-comics.com/smbcforum/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=3416
Individuals living in a society have an obligation to that society, just as society has an obligation to each individual living in it. If all things were equal, we would all pay the same static amount in it. However, they are not. Many people benefit greatly from society, and thus their obligation to society is great. The inverse is true as well, those who society barely benefits at all, and in fact, society often exploits, society has a great obligation to them.rwwright wrote:Funny -- this kind of reasoning is used by people of all political persuasions to justify theft (i.e. taxes) all the time.
Throwing in a constant multiplier doesn't actually change the limit.CommenterX wrote:I don't think anyone has addressed this yet:
The way the equation is introduced is incorrect; while the limit as x-->infinity is the way to go for "proving" (anal/logical interpretations be damned) the victimless thing, it is certainly not true that "Percent victims" = k/x as x-->infinity; "Percent victims" actually = k/x*100. The limit as x-->infinity shouldn't be part of that definition.
oh man i know a country you would just love! they've got no taxes at all, the government is small enough that it won't interfere with your daily life, and you can buy any gun you want and carry it openly!rwwright wrote:Funny -- this kind of reasoning is used by people of all political persuasions to justify theft (i.e. taxes) all the time.
Would you like to join my Anarchist Society?rwwright wrote:Funny -- this kind of reasoning is used by people of all political persuasions to justify theft (i.e. taxes) all the time.
because i wanted to prove it was a bad idea in practise as well as in theoryKaharz wrote:Remind me again why there was a desire to encourage to non-regulars and unregistered users to post?
Just like communism in the latter half of the 20th century!Edminster wrote:because i wanted to prove it was a bad idea in practise as well as in theoryKaharz wrote:Remind me again why there was a desire to encourage to non-regulars and unregistered users to post?
BUTTSLAMMEDOldrac the Chitinous wrote:This is not the right place for this discussion.rwwright wrote:Funny -- this kind of reasoning is used by people of all political persuasions to justify theft (i.e. taxes) all the time.
The right place for this discussion is Tajikistan, because I am unlikely to be anywhere near there in the forseeable future.
The constant isn't what matters. The limit shouldn't be part of the definition - otherwise, the "percent victims" is 0 for nearly all values of k (other than +/-infinity). That is, even when one person kills one person, "percent victims" would be 0.Kaharz wrote:Throwing in a constant multiplier doesn't actually change the limit.CommenterX wrote:I don't think anyone has addressed this yet:
The way the equation is introduced is incorrect; while the limit as x-->infinity is the way to go for "proving" (anal/logical interpretations be damned) the victimless thing, it is certainly not true that "Percent victims" = k/x as x-->infinity; "Percent victims" actually = k/x*100. The limit as x-->infinity shouldn't be part of that definition.
are you sure like maybe it took just one more person to push it over the end or somethingoh my wrote:this comic is hilarious. of course 100 people could kill someone. One hundred people push an enormous boulder off a cliff onto a person standing below.
DonRetrasado wrote:are you sure like maybe it took just one more person to push it over the end or somethingoh my wrote:this comic is hilarious. of course 100 people could kill someone. One hundred people push an enormous boulder off a cliff onto a person standing below.