Leaderboard

Hmm. You mean, your opponents tried to get your buy-in by promising not to do something, and then they went ahead did it anyways the first chance they got? Yeah, welcome to my world. For better and for worse: the days where Democrats could flagrantly lie in their negotiations with Republicans (“gays just want to be left alone, they don’t want *marriage*!“ “gay marriage doesn’t mean you have to agree with it!” “gay marriage will certainly never have repercussions for free exercise of religion!” “just legalize the aliens who are already here and we *promise* we’ll get tough on border security!” “no, we’ll totally support the military while it goes after the SOBs who perpetrated 9/11!” “we want abortion to be safe, rare, and legal; we certainly don’t celebrate it!” “we just want to remove the statues of Confederates; of *course* we continue to revere Washington and Adams and Jefferson and Madison and Lincoln!” “We believe in treating people the same regardless of race” “We have no intention of nationalizing the health care industry!”) while simultaneously expecting Republicans to keep their own promises regardless of cost, are now over.

If your point is that the Republicans are liars and hypocrites, then I grant your point. The fact (and it is a fact) that the Democrats are far worse doesn't justify the Republican hypocrisy. But this is nothing beyond political gamesmanship. You can bet that the Democrats, in this position, would do exactly the same thing. Their pearl clutching on this matter is political theater, nothing more. Consider: The Supreme Court has had a leftist majority for the entirety of our lifetimes. The political left sees a leftist Supreme Court as their inherent right. And that is what is really at stake here. Why shouldn't the Supreme Court take a conservative bend? The Left sees this as unacceptable and will thus do everything in their power to prohibit it. Meanwhile, the Republicans are 100% within their right to nominate and confirm the justice of their choosing. How does the Left respond? With a threat to burn the entire house down by packing the court under a Biden presidency. Rail all you want against Republican hypocrisy. I might even join you. But don't lose sight of what's really going on here. As is almost always the case, the real, deep evil being done here is being done by the Democrats. The Republicans are mostly garden-variety fools and jackasses. The Democrats are something far more sinister.

Good National Review article on the history of such things.

When you're a youth, dating exists to get to better know people and practice basics of relationships. There's more focus on group events. And of course, things should remain chaste. When you're a adult, dating exists for the purpose of finding a spouse. There's more focus on pair off events. And of course, things should remain chaste until marriage. Nothing about the Lord's Law of Chasity is dependent on your age. Living together / sex before are very serious perversions of the Lord's way. Postponing marriage for selfish reasons of "I don't want to grow up!" is childish. Also a relevant side point since you mentioned conversion: if a person is interested in coming to Christ, taking upon His name, and joining the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, that person is excepted to try to follow Him. It's the give your whole heart, mind, might, and soul thing. Therefore, yes you are actually expected to strive to keep the Lord's Law of Chastity. If you're cohabitating, then you're obviously not there yet. So we're work on that before baptism and formally taking His name upon yourself.

Yes, this is what I had heard about before. I understand Aleph0. I don't get what comes next. I see you had the same problem I had. I was actually told differently. I was told that all those things I spoke of were all Aleph0. And there were more things in Aleph1. But as I said, I have no idea what that means. The person telling me all this struggled to explain it himself. And the example he gave me was something I disproved in a couple minutes. Maybe he didn't know either. I'm essentially saying something along the lines of... That is what I was saying about the various infinity^n. I don't know how it could be ineterpreted any other way. This is how I was describing achieving perfection in this life, where x = time in mortality. Some argue that this is also how we progress eternally through the Telestial and Terrestrial. I'm toying with the idea that this notion is not correct, hence, my three dimensions and infinite dimensions pradigm. I did not realize that McConkie agreed with me. I don't see this as much different than the original 3-d and infinite-D model. Sure there is a numerical difference. But conceptually, they're pretty much the same. BTW, I liked the Numberphile link you provided. I've been a fan of that channel. But I never saw that video before. One thing that he brought up, but didn't get into much: Something I believe to be at the root of why sealing is so important. When you add dimension to the trees or the laser, it really doesn't really matter how much dimension it is. The original analysis was based on the trees and laser being of zero dimension. But once you give both of them any measurable dimension at all, then anywhere you point will eventually hit a tree. I believe that this concept is why we need to be sealed. I believe sealing is the "dimension" of eternity. I know that makes no sense as a point-for-point allegory. But conceptually interpreting the math, that is the closest thing to where sealing falls into eternity (off the top of my head postulate). *********** The orchard problem also brings up another interesting point.The fact that the zero dimensions will only hit on rational numbers says something. We mortals try to fit everything into neat little rational boxes. We have a mind, we therefore must be able to understand all the things of God with using our intellect alone. Ha-hah. Compared with the Lord, our intellect is infinitesimal (i.e. has zero dimensional width). So, we limit ourselves when we depend entirely on our rational mind alone. Certainly the rational mind focuses and provides some framework. But if we are to understand eternity and infinity, we must look at and make use of the irrational numbers. By the orchard analogy, we know there are infinitely more irrational numbers than rational numbers. And some of the most important numbers like pi and e are irrational. And they govern the design and intent of so much in this universe alone. Why do we limit ourselves when the Spirit is right there waiting for us to simply listen? Listen, and we had some dimension to our being.

I don't represent the GOP, so I get to be more blunt. The secular fundamentalists hate America's undercurrent of Judeo-Christian morality with a passion. They desire to force our private colleges to house gay partners. They would use the force of law to compel us to provide professional services (cakes and flowers, etc.) for sacrilegious marriage sacraments. They would declare unfit for public office any who take their faith serious enough to be, for example, pro-life. The dogma lives loudly in us indeed. So...call us hypocrites all you want, we're putting as many of our judges in as we can, while we can. Your election term may be coming, but pardon us for defensively prepping.

I'm torn, but thinking that any semblance of decency, respect and cooperation between opposing sides is gone . Many religious leaders are expecting persecution, either following November's election, or a few years later. At least having one more judge in place will delay some of the trials/tribulations to come. :::sigh:::

Of course they would. Look what they did with Obamacare. Put the judge on the bench

I haven't watched this Numberphile (yet—great channel, btw), but given the assumptions that the trees extend infinitely in both directions on a perfectly Euclidian plane and that the tree trunks and the laser beam are all infinitesimally narrow (and that the tree branches, leaves, etc. aren't part of the question), I'm going to say yes, you will always hit a tree. My sense is that such a problem is like saying, "If you pick any real number at random, will you get a rational or an irrational?" The set of irrationals is so much larger than the rationals that it becomes infinitely improbable that you would end up with a rational. Similarly, I'm guessing it's infinitely improbable that you point the laser in exactly a "rational" direction such that you avoid all the infinite tree trunks. But if it's infinitely improbable, isn't that the same as saying it's impossible? Yet we can see that e.g. if you point the laser exactly parallel to a row of trees, that it will never hit a tree trunk. So what does "impossible" mean in this case? What do probabilities mean? It becomes practically a philosophical conundrum, at least for someone as tender and innocent in the arcane ways of mathematics as am I. EDIT: Wow. I was exactly, 180° wrong, and for exactly the reasons I discussed. I wonder how I missed that. The trees represent, in effect, the rational set of numbers, so as long as you pick an effectively "irrational" direction, you'll miss the trees. So with infinitely thin trees and an infinitely narrow laser, it is in effect impossible to point the laser in any direction on the plane and hit a tree.

RBJ is also on record. The Blaze: Here's what Ruth Bader Ginsburg said about voting on Supreme Court nominations in election year

I'm not sure what you mean by [infinity]n, so I'm going to propose a few models and we can discuss them. Usually when we talk about different infinities we are talking about the cardinalities of some infinite set. We start with all Natural numbers [1, 2, 3, ...] and we know there's infinitely many of them [inf]Nat. We compare that against a set that only contains even numbers [2, 4, 6, ...] and our instincts say this should have 1/2 the cardinality of [inf]Nat, but it turns out that for every element in [inf]Nat there's a matching element in [inf]Even.[inf]Even[k] = 2*[inf]Nat[k]. So the cardinalities are exactly the same. This is expressed as Aleph0. (Hebrew - for when your math exceeds Greek notation). Similarly, sets of odds, squares, and primes all have this same cardinality. Even the set of all rationals (Natural + fractions) have this same cardinality. It's all Aleph0. The set of all irrationals, on the other hand, does not map back to the set of Natural numbers so it has a different Aleph (I couldn't tell you what it is, as I've reached the limit of my knowledge on this subject) as does the set of all Reals which subsumes it. A models come from this knowledge. First, we can say that when you say infinity you really mean Aleph0, infiinity2 is Aleph1, and so on. In this case I'm not sure what infiintyinfinity means. This model suggests that Telestial progress is unbounded as far as formal limits go, but vastly smaller than any others. I'm unfamiliar with other Alephs so I can't add anything further here. Second, we could say that when you say infinity, you mean the infinity of a specific infinite set. We'll say that's [inf]Even and infiinty2 is [inf]Nat and infinity3 is [inf]Rational.Additionally, we'll say infinityinfinity is [inf]Real. Again, the implication is that Telestial progress is infinite, but now each kingdom's elements (or experiences, or achievements, or glory) is a subset of the kingdom above it. Additionally, this shows some commonality between the first three (all are countably infinite) and a special state of the highest degree (uncountably infinite). If you want to bring immortality and eternal life into the discussion it would work well. An additional implication is that the lower kingdoms move "faster" than the higher. The kth even element when charted on a number line is farther along than the kth natural which is farther along than the kth rational and so on. You can tease some meaning out of that, but don't know how relevant it would be. A third way we could view it (similar to the 2nd in implications) that lines up more with what you cited to McConkie is to use a number graph. Every degree adds another axis. The x-axis (Telestial) progresses infinitely, and go move along however fast or slow you want it to. But it never enters the y-axis (Terrestrial). y=0. Always. But that's okay, because x- knows nothing of y. A 2-D graph is quite literally infinity2 so it matches up with your naming convention. The Celestial then is 3-D. The advantage of this model is that it's probably more approachable to the (mathematically) lay person than the others. For the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom I would perhaps model it as having Dimensions upon Dimensions added upon it because, as God offers another Dimension the Celestial person never says no. The next 2 don't apply to your model but I mention them just for completion. A fourth way that your modeling is contrasting (but which I'm going to include since that's the one sometimes used for this discussion so it gives a baseline to the discussion) is asymptotic progression. In this one you can view the positive quadrant for and then just change that first 1 value for Kingdom Max. The first 3 all have some max that is ever approached but never reached, while Exaltation is not asymptotic. A fifth model which this stands in contrast with is the one that seems to come to mind simply because of math ignorance. It has Telestial = x, Terrestrial = x2, and Celestial = x3, (and maybe Exaltation is nx?). These are unbounded, but their differences are simply the rate of progression.

IMDb states the following in the Parents Guide (Sex & Nudity): Read the rest or part of the Guide 'if' you want to fully offend the Spirit. I read enough and had to stop.

@NeuroTypical, I'm wondering if there is some "trustworthy source" that actually states unequivocally that there is underage nudity in this film. I'm obviously not going to go check it out for myself for obvious reasons. But is there some film reviewer who would actually tell the truth about it? Netflix has made a public statement that there is "NO UNDERAGE NUDITY" in this film. If that is true, then they can't be prosecuted for distribution of child pornography. But if they are lying, then what are the penalties in today's CFR? @Just_A_Guy??? I understand that DOJ is investigating. But what could potentially happen? And if there is no "actual nudity" (whatever the legal definition is) does "lewd behavior" of minors qualify for some violation? Apparently, everyone agrees there is at least that in the film.

Once again, you've fallen for the media's penchant for taking things out of context. While a few of them really did mean what you say, the great majority of them all included the condition: when the Senate majority and the Presidency were of opposite parties (or those quoted were speaking against the backdrop of such conversation). Think about NT's post above. 100% of the time when a vacancy occurred in an election year when the President and Senate majority were of the same party, the nominations went forth and were confirmed. 80% of those where opposing parties controlled their respective offices, the nominations did NOT go forward to confirmation. Think about it. 100% of the time when they were of the same party (any party) they went forward, And you think this is something worth getting into a stink about? Check your facts before you jump on the bandwagon of "Demonize the Republicans."

Fair enough. I suspect that there is less caution and purity messaging in our college/career groups vs. our jr/sr high ones. So, perhaps more discretion is allowed. Still, modesty and opposition to fornication are counter-culture values we share.

I'm afraid you may have misinterpreted. I was beginning to wonder if that asymptotic behavior in the lower kingdoms was incorrect. I had been taught this for a long time. But I'm not so sure anymore. Of course there are exceptions to such rules. Christ was an exception in far too many ways to discount a theory by pointing to the one man who was OBVIOUSLY an exception. For example: How many people have been translated? Even if we count the cities of Enoch and Salem, we're not even talking about 1 million people of all the billions who have lived on this planet. Even the people of Ammon who by most people's estimation were perfect in keeping the commandments, were not translated. So, what does perfection mean in this life?

Clearly the Lord is going to use the current circumstances to His advantage as He always does and I sincerely hope your family is blessed because if it. Though it is still not the ideal for most members so take advantage of it while it is here. But even when it ends do not lose hope that the Lord can reach them individually. He knows them better than anyone and knows what it will take to turn their hearts.

That's the standard mapping for it. Guess what that means for the following scenario: stand in a regularly ordered grid of 1-D trees that extends in the plane, with each tree placed some unit length along two axes (glad @zil isn't around to read this), and then point your 0-D laser out into the woods. Will your laser hit a tree?

I found a reference that explains an example demonstrating that the rationals are countably infinite, and thus aleph-naught. It's not mathematically rigorous, so if you want to use it on your Math Ed Master's thesis, you're out of luck. But it's convincing. I admit I chuckled out loud when I saw it. Clever. https://www.homeschoolmath.net/teaching/rational-numbers-countable.php#:~:text=A set is countable if you can count its elements.&text=In mathematical terms%2C a set,the set of natural numbers.

I think this study is what placed "singing at church during COVID" on everyone's radar: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6919e6.htm - "High SARS-CoV-2 Attack Rate Following Exposure at a Choir Practice — Skagit County, Washington, March 2020" Poo-poo it all you want, but it seems reasonable to ask people to at least understand what they're poo-poo-ing. It's good to have a working knowledge of human rights and the constitution. But folks without at least a basic understanding of "emitters" and "superemitters", and the relationship of droplet formation and loudness/volume, would seem to be at a disadvantage when trying to form a relevant opinion - because the lawfulness of a public health order is only half the story.

This issue is making some news. USA Today: State attorneys general ask Netflix to pull controversial 'Cuties' as director defends 'feminist' film (Ohio, Florida, Louisiana, and Texas) Senator Ted Cruz "sent a letter calling on @TheJusticeDept to investigate whether Netflix, its executives, or the filmmakers violated any federal laws against the production and distribution of child pornography." US Senator from Hawaii Tulsi Gabbard says Cuties "will certainly whet the appetite of pedophiles & help fuel the child sex trafficking trade." And points out "1 in 4 victims of trafficking are children. It happened to my friend's 13 year old daughter. Netflix, you are now complicit." The Washington Post attacks Cruz and defends Cuties. I think I did the right thing by canceling my family's Netflix account.

I looked as hard as I could in the OP, based on the headline, for the phrase, "with the initial physical evidence of speaking in tongues," and then realized, alas, that I was sorely mistaken.

I'm sure this will shock some of you but thought I would let you all know, that yesterday I volunteered for the vaccine trials for Covid-19, held up in the Ogden Utah area. The vaccine is one that was created in Russia. I received my first shot yesterday at 4:00 pm, and I wanted to let you all know that it’s completely safe, with иo side effects whatsoeveя, and that I feelshκι χoρoshό я чувствую себя немного странно и я думаю, что вытащил ослин.

mordorbund mulls math mysteries.