I’m pretty sure he was involved with the liberation theology movements in Argentina before the previous pope clamped down on it (in his capacity as a cardinal)

technically yes, but the proof would usually show that this works by constructing the bijection of [0,1] and (0,1) and then you’d say the cardinalities are the same by the Schröder-Berstein theorem, because the proof of the latter is likely not something you want to demonstrate every day

even if that’s not how you can write it, one gets the same issue in yours subtracting infinity from both sides

it’s actually Vulcan

ah, but don’t forget to prove that the cardinality of [0,1] is that same as that of (0,1) on the way!

no, there aren’t enough integers to map onto the interval (0,1).

probably the most famous proof for this is Cantor’s diagonalisation argument. though as it usually shows how the cardinality of the naturals is small than this interval, you’ll also need to prove that the cardinality of the integers is the same as that of the naturals too (which is usually seen when you go about constructing the set of integers to begin with)

actually you can for each real number you can exhaustively map a uninque number from the interval (0,1) onto it. (there are many such examples, you can find one way by playing around with the function tanx)

this means these two sets are of the same size by the mathematical definition of cardinality :)

sorry, I’m a little slow today. how is this seemingly keeping the economy afloat?

you’re assuming they’re doing it by accident

I like my potatoes raw thank you very much

every dollar you raise, the fewer customers you get. the point is that you should want to raise the price whenever the relative drop in customers is less than the relative increase in price to maximise profits (where marginal cost is marginal benefit :) )

some injustices are structural

actually history is just our collective understanding of the past, so if it changes, history changes

right, except sometimes it’s easier to impose conditions on certain countries than others. for example the US was able to get the previous Indian administration to sign a treaty ceding partial control of their arsenal to them, on threat of sanctions (if I recall correctly). as much as the US might want to do something like that with China, it wouldn’t be anywhere near as easy to pull off.

this is just an example, I’m not attaching moral value to what occurred/occurs

you don’t need to say yes if someone asks you?

XMPP?

while the last point is perhaps the main determinant theory behind why many older people are not being owing more right wing, I’m a little confused by your first two points.

especially the fact that people have greater access to knowledge and are forced to think more critically. if anything, with the advent of the internet, echo chambers have never been easier, preventing critical thinking. this leads to a growing of extreme positions which further reinforces such views due to tribalistic fallacies in our thinking and the need for these tribal identities to distinguish themselves.

can’t you just buy a cheaper USB 3.0 speed cable anyway? or is this a hardware limitation that Apple have put in the port of the phone?

no one wants lower wages, but wage increases lead to businesses increasing their prices.

supply shocks aside, there is a negative correlation between inflation and unemployment for a host of complex reasons. so there’s ultimately a trade-off to pick.

unfortunately, the issue is that given businesses also function from the idea that there is such a trade-off, supposing we announce we want to lower unemployment, they raise their prices in anticipation.

it’s a sad system

cries in Deleuze