Bitcoin Forum

MUAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA SELL SELL SELL!!!!!!!!!!!

FYI don't ever talk shit about the um... hmmm... .  ;D

I see why you got banned......

I doubt you will see this but,
have you notice how good the forums have been since I pushed them to clean up streets? XD
Sure I got bizzandered in the process but the needs of the Tasty, outweigh the needs of, every other MFKer here.  ;D

Real talk.
An outnumbering amount of people don't recognize the patterns in the full spectrum nature of humanity,
so just to make sure you and anyone else who reads this see it. I will explain this part in black and white.
The only reason cops are around is because of criminals,
and the only reason criminals get better at what they do,
is because of cops, thus also creating better cops.

It's always the meek who pay for this.

and the only reason why their are around criminals is becuase nobody can figure out(or agree on) what is a morally correct way to live their life.

why did you change your username?
 :(

We are all what we have learned, so I subscribe to the notion of letting others figure it out on their own accord at a personal level. Unless it interferes with me, at a personal level.

So you would agree that everyone has enough self control to run an anarchist society?

Define everyone.  ;D

Everyone = the whole of all sets

Actually, there was an entire community that lived in a socialist anarchy-like environment a hundred-or-so years ago. Meaning everyone put an equal part toward living with no law and no order.

I read a book on it, written by a guy named Giovanni Baldelli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Baldelli) who wrote the book Social Anarchism, a very good read. Perhaps it would interest you.

The set of all sets = 1

How does this community defend against a gang of outside looters/pillagers which is heavily armed and trained to kill?

Well, you see, that's why the community is no more. With the way humans are, a true non-violent anarchistic society is but a utopia, just a dream.

Since non-violent anarchy is not possible among humans you could say 'anarchy' as a concept is impossible.
Humans (as a wider group) can't live without social cohesion, hierarchy and power structures.

If those are lacking, the void will be overtaken instantly by the most ruthless group of people.
Somalia is a living example of a government void filled with gunmen and warlords.

In that case no.

Anarchism is on par with the idea of perfection, can never achieved but is sought continually.

That's why we should gather up all the intelligent people by screening all the people in the world, and then we find a chain of uninhabited islands and set up camp. :D

I think puzzeles solved the mystery! :D :P
That does sound like a grand idea tho.....

You guys can build your own thrones by mine if you want to be kings too. :)

So you think this a characteristic only present in unintelligent humans?  Furthermore, what are your qualifications for intelligent?  Education level, IQ tests, personal wealth?

Obviously, intelligence can come in many forms. That's why we would elect two or three of the wisest/smartest/and most philosophical people to screen the others. Problem solved. :D

Cool, i now know why you got banned  :D

yeh, I'm not an anarchist.
XD

political ideologies don't concern me much.

The set of all sets = 1/0

That's why we should gather up all the intelligent people by screening all the people in the world, and then we find a chain of uninhabited islands and set up camp. :D
[/quote]

greenland? i heard summer is coming soon there :D

is that a one divded by zero or its just 1/0?

It's a one divided by zero.  Get it?  If not, ask Russell.

So your claiming that 1/0 dosen't = undefined
You have came up with the conclusion that The set of all sets equal 1/0?
How so?
I mean if you have nothing... how do you divide the set?
Unless both 1 and 0 mean the same thing in this context....

Well, I guess you're not going to work from my hint :(

No, I was saying exactly that 1/0 = undefined.  I was being cute.

Trying to define a "set of all sets" leads to a paradox, since it must contain its own power set, whose cardinality is strictly greater than its own.  So to avoid being able to define such paradoxical sets in set theory, you need this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%E2%80%93Fraenkel_set_theory#3._Axiom_schema_of_specification_.28also_called_the_axiom_schema_of_separation_or_of_restricted_comprehension.29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%E2%80%93Fraenkel_set_theory#3._Axiom_schema_of_specification_.28also_called_the_axiom_schema_of_separation_or_of_restricted_comprehension.29)

Notice from the link what the "ask Russell" hint meant now?

Yeah i've read the before..... but i didn't understand it until we had this whole 1 divided by zero conversation... that just blew my mind