Hah no worries. Thanks for being so reasonable yourself lmao.

Fair points. The latter case is basically where my concern is.

I don’t have a don’t in this don’t.

I think you are assuming a level of competence from people that I don’t have faith people actually have. People absolutely can and do take “you cannot prove a negative” as a real logical rule in the literal negation sense. This isn’t colloquialism. This is people misunderstanding what the phrase means.

I have definitely had conversations with idiots that have taken this phrase to mean that you just literally cannot logically prove negated statements. Whether folks like you get that that is not what the phrase refers to is irrelevant to why I’m pointing out the distinction.

If you subscribe to classical logic (i.e., propositonal or first order logic) this is not true. Proof by contradiction is one of the more common classical logic inference rules that lets you prove negated statements and more specifically can be used to prove nonexistence statements in the first order case. People go so far as to call the proof by contradiction rule “not-introduction” because it allows you to prove negated things.

Here’s a wiki page that also disagrees and talks more specifically about this “principle”: source (note the seven separate sources on various logicians/philosophers rejecting this “principle” as well).

If you’re talking about some other system of logic or some particular existential claim (e.g. existence of god or something else), then I’ve got not clue. But this is definitely not a rule of classical logic.

Salad

Deconstructed calzone. Very rare and exotic.

Wow. How fucking dare you? I trusted you.

The humble knifoon remains forgotten :(

Those are backups in case the other functions break down.

Christ, it’s like people just don’t even give a fuck about the extreme value theorem anymore?

I’m sorry my mom called you “pretty fucking dumb”. I know that must have hurt your feelings.

This feels pretty fucking dumb.

So you’re saying that because a religion allows you to choose which of God’s commandments, carefully passed down through every generation, you personally want to follow based on your gut feeling, can’t be shamed?

No, that is not what I said.

Why should the ones who choose to deny parts of their religion be seen as representative of it over those who’ve chosen to uphold them?

I definitely answered this in my original comment.

Because if the majority of people following a particular religion reject a prior view as false or wrong, then arguably that view is no longer part of the religion.

Religions aren’t crisp, unchanging, monolithic entities where everybody believes the same thing forever. If we’re talking about judaism in the sense of the views and practices jewish people actually subscribe to, then that seems like we are referring to beliefs they actually hold in a mainstream/current sense, not beliefs they previous held but now reject?

This seems a little hyperbolic of you.

Ain’t nothin’ but a heartache.

The punchline here is a little compact. I don’t feel like it really gives the closure I need. Maybe if the basis for the joke had more continuity the humor would be less discrete.

Operating System Concepts by Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne is a classic OS textbook. Andrew Tanenbaum has some OS books too. I really liked his OS Design and Implementation book but I’m pretty sure that one is super outdated by now. I have not read his newer one but it is called Modern Operating Systems iirc.

i has nice real world analogues in the form of rotations by pi/2 about the origin (though this depends a little bit on what you mean by “real world analogue”).

Since i=exp(ipi/2), if you take any complex number z and write it in polar form z=rexp(it), then multiplication by i yields a rotation of z by pi/2 about the origin because zi=rexp(it)exp(ipi/2)=rexp(i(t+pi/2)) by using rules of exponents for complex numbers.

More generally since any pair of complex numbers z, w can be written in polar form z=rexp(it), w=uexp(iv) we have wz=(ru)exp(i(t+v)). This shows multiplication of a complex number z by any other complex number w can be thought of in terms of rotating z by the angle that w makes with the x axis (i.e. the angle v) and then scaling the resulting number by the magnitude of w (i.e. the number u)

Alternatively you can get similar conclusions by Demoivre’s theorem if you do not like complex exponentials.