SMBC Comics Forum

Remind me again why there was a desire to encourage to non-regulars and unregistered users to post?

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.

rwwright wrote:Funny -- this kind of reasoning is used by people of all political persuasions to justify theft (i.e. taxes) all the time.

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.

Paying taxes, your due diligence to society, is not theft, trying to cheat your way out of paying your taxes is.

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.

Throwing in a constant multiplier doesn't actually change the limit.

rwwright wrote:Funny -- this kind of reasoning is used by people of all political persuasions to justify theft (i.e. taxes) all the time.

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!

somalia is a magical wonderland

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?

Just send me $25 for the dues and I'll send you the regulations for our group.

Kaharz wrote:Remind me again why there was a desire to encourage to non-regulars and unregistered users to post?

because i wanted to prove it was a bad idea in practise as well as in theory

Edminster wrote:

Kaharz wrote:Remind me again why there was a desire to encourage to non-regulars and unregistered users to post?

because i wanted to prove it was a bad idea in practise as well as in theory

Just like communism in the latter half of the 20th century!

shouldn't the equation be v = k/(k+X)

Glad to see that I wasn't the only one bothered enough to post for the first time:

"Sufficiently large" is not the same as "infinity" "Sufficiently large" is not how limits work!

I still appreciated the joke though! I'm just giving you a hard time, keep up the good work!

Oldrac the Chitinous wrote:

rwwright wrote:Funny -- this kind of reasoning is used by people of all political persuasions to justify theft (i.e. taxes) all the time.

This is not the right place for this discussion.

The right place for this discussion is Tajikistan, because I am unlikely to be anywhere near there in the forseeable future.

BUTTSLAMMED

Kaharz wrote:

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.

Throwing in a constant multiplier doesn't actually change the limit.

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.

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. one hundred people flip one hundred switches at the same time that detonate a bomb in someone's car while they are driving it. But any number of scenarios could be invented. The comic lampoons the idea of infinity in philosophy of mathematics which works well for the practical use of limits in mathematics, but has disturbing philosophical implications. This has led some(impractical but well meaning) thinkers to attempt mathematical systems that get around this problem, though this has not been an issue in recent times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfinite_number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finitism

oh 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.

are you sure like maybe it took just one more person to push it over the end or something

DonRetrasado wrote:

oh 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.

are you sure like maybe it took just one more person to push it over the end or something

yawn