Journal Entries
McCarthyism
Posted Aug 12, 2011
I was just thinking about possible causes for the riots.
You see there was a bit of McCarthyism going on whenever somebody was asked why they thought it happened; if they said it was political they got accused of loving a rioter.This makes it intimidating to try and make sense of the chaos.
This is how it goes: criminals around here employ under age children to take the rap. Drug dealers pay children to carry drugs and shoplifters use children to take stolen goods out of a store, or at least hold on to it, because they can't be prosecuted.
It seems then that there was two groups of rioters; the foolish sheep there by invitation and of childlike attribute, and the much older and dangerous ones who were the planners attacking the police, destroying property and killing people who get in the way.
I think there was a sort of plan being implemented by those disaffected; the children invited to cause the police problems, the police were unlikely to use bullets on children and the ensuing chaos would be hard to follow or contain.
The reason I thought there was two groups is that some didn't look interested in stealing as much as destroying, and they was less interested in the shops than attacking police, they didn't steal any cars they just set fire to them.
Discuss this Journal entry [1]
Latest reply: Aug 12, 2011
Life Expectancy
Posted Jul 23, 2010
Cor; raise the age of retirement to 70.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10730095
Discuss this Journal entry [1]
Latest reply: Jul 23, 2010
Mystery Room
Posted Feb 11, 2009
Nothing here
Discuss this Journal entry [5]
Latest reply: Feb 11, 2009
Mmmmmmm
Posted Aug 4, 2008
I got to write this arithmetic down, I don't know why.
x=0.111111.
100x=11.11111.
11x=11.0
x=1
Might come in useful one day, its calculus though Mmmmmmm.
Discuss this Journal entry [59]
Latest reply: Aug 4, 2008
mathematical Proof
Posted Jun 27, 2008
x'=inverse of x;
Every time I think of commutators I fall asleep. I haven't had any inspirational thoughts to drive me to write a few hundred words.
I don't understand what the P=NP problem is getting at, but as far as commutators go results are very easy to verify, and excrutiatingly difficult to prove.
Everytime I think of commutators I... their I go again. Keep thinking of more problems. If z belongs to a group, is z=xy, well we know xy is equal to something, let z=y(y'z) zzzz....
If z is commutative and z=xy, do x,y commute, but that's not very interesting, how about if z is non commutative?
xyy'=zy'=y'z=y'xy so x=y'xy so yx=xy zzzzzzzzzzzzz...
If z is non commutative for some x, xz != zx;
If x commutes with y does x' commute with y?
y=yxx'=xyx' and x'y=x'xyx'
If z does not commute with x' and x'z=y so z=xy and if y is commutative z=yx and zx'=x'z. # zzzzzzzzzzzz....
This is a proof by contradiction, reductio ad absurdum (look up latin)
The problem is that the only proof of the normality of the commutator subgroup I can find, is total crap.
If we construct a subgroup of commutators, I mean generated by commutators xyx'y' and all products of, then closure is not an issue. You see in the proof I've got, which is total crap, I can't see that although the conjugate of a commutator is a product of commutators, that every element in the least subgroup is a product of commutators or abelian. Their are non-abelian elements of s4-a4, and since s4/a4 is abelian then a4 contains all the commutators, by Rose I think, vaguely.
The above generated subgroup looks ok to me, every commutator and product is non abelian, and it is EASY TO VERIFY that a conjugate of a product of commutators is a product of commutators.
Writing it down looks horrendous.zzzzzzZZZZ
Discuss this Journal entry [9]
Latest reply: Jun 27, 2008
Pirate Alexander LeGray
Researcher U11070054
Write an Entry
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."