Propositional Function Puns

How does it differ from a proposition? It's a part of predicate logic, right? Does it express something in the same way a proposition does?

I am trying to be as precise as I can about what propositional functions are and what they're supposed to map. I've looked at the SEP on this, but I am left puzzled by their use of "expresses a proposition", as I describe below.

Russell, for example, says that propositional functions, once you substitute an argument for their variable, come to express propositions. Example "x is a dog" is a propositional function, kind of like Dog(x). When you put something into x like "Fido", then it expresses the proposition "Fido is a dog". From there, I hear that these functions are mapped to either TRUE or FALSE.

But what exactly is the mapping here? I am not sure what it means to "express" a proposition versus "returning" or "being mapped to" propositions.

Is it that propositional functions are functions between objects and truth values? That is, a propositional function is a function F that maps elements of its domain set (these elements being objects like particular dogs) to elements of its codomain set (the set of possible truth values)?

Or, is it that the propositional function is from the set of particular objects to the set of propositions? Does a propositional function return a proposition, or does it return a truth value?

Thanks.

I'm currently researching Bertrand Russell's various analyses of a physical object. As I'm sure you're all aware, he was a philosopher of math first and foremost, and because of this he tends to use terms as they are used by mathematicians rather than as they are used in other areas of philosophy or in ordinary language. Because I am unfamiliar with such uses, I find myself at a loss as to what he means in certain passages.

For example, he says that a "thing" is "marked by [its] differential independence". After some research, I've come to the idea that he means to say that whatever is a "thing" is such that it is a system of individuals and relations, and these individuals undergo system-wide changes in said relations, and these changes are not dependent upon (i.e., are not "with respect to") anything outside of that system.

In simpler terms, a "thing" is that which can undergo changes in its properties, and do so independently of any other "thing".

Additionally, it seems like he wants a "thing" H to be defined as an assertion:

(i) there exists some function F and some minimal region r such that F(r)=H, and,

(ii) for all H', (F(r) = H') --> H = H'

And, in his terms, F is not a function simpliciter but rather a "propositional function".

In other words, wherever a proposition mentions "a thing H", it mentions the assertion that there exists a propositional function F which has exactly one value.

Does any of this make sense to anyone? Can anyone tell me if I'm on the right track? Am I at all using these terms: 'differential independence', 'existence', 'propositional function' properly according to their use in mathematical parlance? I would be very grateful for insight, thanks.

This came from a math question I was doing, but the question just asked me to use the property given in the title do the question. As part of the question, I verified that it worked for function f(x) = x^3 + 1 at x = 2 pretty easily, but I couldn't help but wonder why the property worked and if it really worked for all functions that had an inverse and a derivative for all real numbers x. As I am still in high school, I searched up how to structure proofs, but I couldn't quite work it out by myself. If a function has a derivative and inverse for all real numbers x, I think it implies that f(x) is a strictly increasing or decreasing continuous function, but I didn't know where to take it from there. Can anybody help me? Or is this just a stupid question that I shouldn't worry about when I am doing high school problems?

Loom Network (loomx.io) has beta SDK that can be used to spawn side chains with dPOS which can be as decentralized as the creator of dapp wants. They already have an example dapp live (delegatecall.com)

I'm having some problems proving the inverse is continuous. The hint in the book is to use the standard epsilon-delta definition of continuity. I believe the easiest route is a proof by contradiction, but with all of the quantifiers in the statement, I may be incorrectly negating the statement I am trying to prove. Also, I have at my disposal the intermediate value theorem, which most of my proof relies on. Below is the theorem:

\begin{theorem}Let $a < b$ be real numbers, and let $ f:[a, b] \to \mathbb{R} $ be a function which is both continuous and strictly monotone increasing. Then $f$ is a bijection from $[a, b]$ to $[f(a), f(b)]$, and the inverse $f^{-1}: [f(a), f(b)] \to [a, b]$ is also continuous and strictly monotone increasing.\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}Let $x_1, x_2 \in [a, b]$ be real numbers such that $f(x_1) = f(x_2)$. From the trichotomy of the real numbers, we have that exactly one of the following is true: $x_1 = x_2$, $x_1 < x_2$, or $x_1 > x_2$. Suppose $x_1 \not = x_2$. Then, by definition of strictly increasing monotone functions, we have that $f(x_1) \not = f(x_2)$. Thus, $x_1 = x_2$, and $f$ is injective.

Now let $y \in [f(a), f(b)]$ be a real number. Then, by the intermediate value theorem, there exists a real number $c \in [a, b]$ such that $f(c) = y$. Thus, $f$ is a surjection from $[a, b]$ to $[f(a), f(b)]$. Since $f$ is both injective and surjective, we can conclude that $f$ is a bijection from $[a, b]$ to $[f(a), f(b)]$.

To show that $f^{-1}$ is strictly monotone increasing, let $y_1, y_2 \in [f(a), f(b)]$ be real numbers such that $y_1 < y_2$. Then,by the intermediate value theorem, there exist $x_1, x_2 \in [a, b]$ such that $f(x_1) = y_1$ and $f(x_2) = y_2$. Since $f$ is strictly monotone increasing, we have $x_1 < x_2$. Using the definition of an inverse, we have\begin{align*}f^{-1}(y_1) &= f^{-1}(f(x_1)) \\&= x_1 \\&< x_2 \\&= f^{-1}(f(x_2)) \\&=f^{-1}(y_2) \text{,}\end{align*}showing that $f^{-1}$ is strictly monotone increasing.

Finally, we will show that $f^{-1}$ is continuous. Let $y_0 \in [f(a), f(b)]$ be a real number, and let $\epsilon > 0 $ be a real number. As before, there exists a real number $x_0 \in [a, b]$ such that $f(x_0) = y_0$. Likewise, for any real number $y \in [f(a), f(b)]$, the intermediate value theorem tells us that there exists a real n

Consider the argument:

P1) Beliefs have truth values

P2) Neural states don't have truth values

P3) If there is F such that F(x) & ~F(y), then ~(x=y)

Therefore

C) Beliefs aren't neural states

What are the options for the reductionist here?

The Churchlands attempted to deny P1) recently, but I don't see how this position isn't self-refuting. Beliefs seem to me more than ordinary psychology, they seem to be pressupositions of theorizing.

Rejecting P2) is an interesting move but entails a lot of metaphysical bullets to bite.

Lastly, P3) is the contrapositive of the indiscernability of identicals. So a logical truth.

One could object that there is a certain fallacy at work here underlying the use of P3).

But this doesn't work. We already use "x has a truth-value" as a predicate that meaningfully distinguishes, say, propositions from concepts or sentences from singular terms. So substitution works with "x has a truth-value".

What do you think?

Keane, in 1994, stated that with current knowledge, this dispute would not be settled, but has anything changed in cognitive science after all those years?

I know this question looks trivial but I'm considering how to prove ((x=y)∧(y=z))→(x=z) from the axioms like: Equality's reflective property, substitution for functions and formulas; Axioms of propositional and predicate logic, And things like this, or is it a fact that it's an axiom on itself and can't be proved? but I have already proved the symmetric property of equality.

btw Merry Christmas everyone! Or Merry early Christmas or late Christmas for different time zones.

Need qualified people to help me with math quiz

Specifically these 4 topics.

Functions

propositional logic exercise

Predicate logic

Boolean algebra

Would prefer if you have vouchers aswell

It has nothing to do with gameplay. I'm not bitching about gameplay. Gameplay wise most fighting games are in a good place I think barring some dumb decisions here and there. I think developers are extremely misguided in thinking its the mechanics and controls that keep people from buying fighting games.

But holy fuck what is up with developers and being unable to add the most basic features of any multiplayer game of the past 15 years. Where are the extra modes? Where the fuck is Tekken Force? Soul Calibur sells itself on modes like 2's Weapons Master and 3-6's Character Creator. Virtua Fighter's Quest mode is amazing a teaching players the game while being entertaining. Why is every fighting game launching with less characters less moves, and less modes despite being full price plus tacking a season pass on top day 1? Why do they look 5-10 years behind graphically? Why despite every other genre in the industry adopting it as standard is cross-play still not a standard feature? Why did it take so long for rollback to become a standard feature?

Say what you want about Smash Brothers, but at least they were smart enough to let players fuck around with the settings. Why can't I fucking tweak damage or have unlimited meter in SFV? Why can't I remove the juggle limit in Tekken or adjust scaling in Guilty Gear? Why don't stages have a competitive and non-competitive format so casual players could have both visual and mechanical distinct stages? Its not like any of this would affect the competitive rule set or ranked modes if you kept it separate.

And multiplayer options just fucking suck. Why isn't there an option in every 1v1 fighting game that rips-off KOF's 3v3 party vs mode? Let me queue up with 2 other homies and go against another team of 3. Why does it take so fucking long to match-make and load into a game? Why isn't ranked tracked per character like Tekken to encourage players to try other characters? Why is instant rematch not a standard feature? Why is it Arc System Works still cannot create a functioning lobby system after years and years of complaints? Why do so many games still have lobbies where its only 1 game at a time? A fucking 20 dollar budget Power Rangers fighting game has lobbies where up to 8 games can be going on at once, and it has cross play. How is a fucking budget title standing up toe-to-toe to AAA fighting games and beating them in feature set?

Why is frame data not standard? Tekken forces you to pay for it and Guilty Gear

Game Information

Game Title: Halo Infinite

Platforms:

• PC (Dec 8, 2021)
• Xbox One (Dec 8, 2021)
• Xbox Series X/S (Dec 8, 2021)

Trailers:

• Halo Infinite | Multiplayer Season 1 Cinematic Intro
• Halo Infinite | Campaign Gameplay Premiere – 8 Minute Demo
• Halo Infinite | Campaign Gameplay Trailer
• Halo Infinite - E3 2018 - Announcement Trailer

Developer: 343 Industries

Publisher: Xbox Game Studios

Review Aggregator:

OpenCritic - 86 average - 94% recommended - 93 reviews

Critic Reviews

ACG - Jeremy Penter - Buy

>Video Review - Quote not available

AusGamers - KostaAndreadis - 8 / 10

>In the end though it’s hard to fault what 343 Industries has accomplished with Halo Infinite. It’s very much the spiritual successor it purports to be -- with forward thinking design and elements that flow in a way that reminds you of the timeless nature of the fluid, stylish combat of old. The lack of co-op is something you feel, but in terms of cinematic spectacle this is the Master Chief carrying the flag once more for Xbox. Albeit in that new-school form of being able to jump in and, well, play anywhere.

CGMagazine - Khari Taylor - 9.5 / 10

>Unencumbered by the baggage of the upcoming story campaign, Halo Infinite Multiplayer is arguably the definitive incarnation of the franchise’s online competitive component and is strong enough to stand on its own despite its F2P leanings.

COGconnected - Garrett Drake - 76 / 100

>I’ve shared many gripes I have with Halo Infinite. I’ve shared them meticulously because I love this franchi

Jason smiled as the shuttle screamed out into the open sky.

“Well, relatively open,” he murmured to himself as he stared at the stormy clouds above.

Maybel paused in her open-mouthed staring to turn back to him. “You say something?”

“Nothing worth mentioning.” He shook his head, only to grunt as a sudden gust of wind had the craft leaning to the left.  Shifting the flight stick, he soon had the shuttle leveled out, though it wasn’t long at all before he was compensating in the opposite direction.

The stormy open skies of Raknos-Three were fun like that.

Though it still beats scraping paint across cave walls, he thought, before glancing up at the storm clouds above. Though how long I’ll be able to maintain that opinion remains to be seen.

After all, the complete lack of aerospace craft in the planet’s atmosphere had not come about as a result of a lack of desire for aerial superiority on the Imperium’s part. No, the reason no one flew anything ‘in-atmosphere’ was because doing so was considered borderline suicidal – what with the wind, rain, lightning and occasional absurdly tall mountain.

As if to punctuate his thoughts, a massive bolt of lightning streaked across the skies above him. Which he could only barely make out through the rain that was even now occluding his external cameras – despite said camera’s wipers best attempts to alleviate it. Between that and the ionization in the air obstructing his sensors, he was effectively flying blind.

How fortunate for him, he needed only to go up - into a storm so large it would have quite effectively covered a good chunk of the North American continent.

“Jason…”

He looked over to see that Maybel had gotten over her awe at being the very first Ufrian to fly and was now staring through the murky windscreen up at the foreboding sky above them with an expression that pretty well mirrored how he felt.

“…are you sure this is a good idea?”

Jason glanced down at the many yellow lights that lit up his dashboard. Everyone of which could have independently told him that what he was about to attempt was a very bad idea. Hell, even if they were all blue, this would have been a bad idea.

“Sure,” he said, trying to put a brave face on it. For Maybel’s sake if nothing else. “This’ll be a piece of cake.”

The alien cocked her head to the side. “Cake?”

Jason pulled up on the stick, feeling the subtle sensation of acceleration even through the anti-grav as he angled up towards the storm.

“When we make it out of

With expressions like "HODL", "FOMO", "DAO", "ATH", "LP" we can sometimes sound alien to people who aren't into cryptospace.

Are you new to crypto and want to join in the conversation? Let's start from the A

battling drug addiction and functioning to be upper middle normal w pta and farmers markets, 3 figure salaries. then guilt shame and being told not to play the victim when you feel shameful for choosing drugs over playing w the kid. Scared to die bc of the reaction or benzos coke and drink and can’t think of the selfishness that would hurt your 6 year old so so hard..get laughed at at the proposition of outpatient...then feel cast aside because you’re too anxious to fuck due to pstd so sit quietly while he vr cams in the room while u hold your baby. Weekly. Weak.

Hey everyone, I'm here with some cutting-edge TA for you. This is an experimental technique that has never been seen before. I worked out the details on an overnight word salad voice call session with user u/DoctorWelch after after he asked me to be his DeFi mentor, and turned out to be an apt Topos theory pupil.

We all know that the HOGE-ETH liquidity pool has reserves on both sides: X HOGE and Y ETH. Denote this state <X, Y>. Now we have the LP invariant law enforced by Uniswap, where X*Y is the famous constant k. This leads to an infinite number of possible states: For any positive number X, the state <X, k/X> is a valid LP state. At this stage I suggest using your pencil (or crayon) to check the math (or have a snack).

Now consider an abstract space whose "objects" are valid LP states. Between any two objects is an "arrow" representing the trade required to move the LP. Consider this diagram:

<1 Billion, k / 1 billion> ---f---> <2 billion, k / 2 billion>

The arrow f represents the action of selling 1 billion HOGE. There is an opposite arrow, g, which represents the purchase of 1 billion HOGE. There are also trivial "identity arrows", for example:

<1 Billion, k / 1 billion> ---I---> <1 Billion, k / 1 billion>

which represents inaction of traders. At this point it might be helpful to use a colored pencil set to draw a diagram with f, g, and the 2 identity arrows.

Now comes a key insight which I will call the compositionality property. Consider three objects A, B, and C, with arrows as follows:

A ---f---> B ---g---> C.

There must exist a third arrow, h, between A and C. h represents the combined action of f and g, but done in one fell swoop.

To check whether you're following, ask yourself this: In the example from the preceeding paragraph, what arrow do you get by composing f with the identity arrow on either side? What arrow do you get by composing f and g?

If you're still with me then congratulations, you should have a solid foundation for what comes next. The actual evolution of the HOGE pool is represented by a time-series of trades as seen on DexTools. Treat this as a universal discrete dynamical system: in other words for each time step 0, 1, 2,... from the time the founding Hoglers incepted our token, there is a unique function s taking time t to state s(t). You can imagine laying out all the objects and all the time steps, and "connecting the dots" across the two rows.

A B

This is my first time writing something in-depth like this so bear with me please! I'm new to crypto, only holding LRC, learned all my wrinkles from the sub of stonks, but I come to the Loopring community to learn and hopefully share some ideas while listening and reading twice as much.

Which got me thinking...that with all the bad rap NFTs have gotten over the past year (right-click jpeg memes, you-own-a-hyperlink-not-an-image sort of stuff) I was thinking about the registration aspect of NFTs potential. The certification of ownership in general. Video games. Movies. Documents. Stocks. Anything that can be traced to an individual. Owning art via NFTs is one application of the tech, sure, but the analogy I'm thinking about is how similar NFTs are to barcodes and the everyday things we put barcodes on. Albeit way, way more digitally versatile.

Come with me on a journey through time and space and dive into a brief history of barcodes, lööpërs.

you seen this? you heard about this?

The Basics

Barcodes register any item to any back-end system that logs, tracks, itemizes, or categorizes said item. Through that basic tech, a host of statistics and transaction records can be compiled and sorted. A simple way to connect a product to specified dataset.

The UPC (or Universal Product Code) was first mentioned in a patent from 1934, with the initial patent for barcodes not being filed until 1949 by Bernard Silver and Joseph Woodland. The two lads were graduate students from the Drexel Institute of Technology in Philadelphia. By the patent's approval date in 1952, the beginnings of the barcode was simply a series of rings which utilized “photo-electric cells or other light-responsive means…in accordance with the marks on the cards or records.”

\"is that a mf bullseye I see? looks like it.\" - people in the 1950's

Woodland came up with the idea while drawing in the sand, observing the distance between the lines and noting that they "represented a sort of long form of dots and dashes", not unlike Morse code. Woodland referred to this idea as "omnidirectional" scanning. Unfortunately, the mean

Edit to add: the park was my idea. I was as work when my sister texted me saying her 'boyfriend' hit her again. I asked my fiancé to get her so she was safe. He wasn't comfortable taking her to our house again so I suggested the park. It was a large and busy park so they were not alone or secluded when she propositioned him.

I (21F) am engaged to my partner of 3 years (23M). At the start of our relationship, I was close with my sister (20). A few years ago, she had a large falling out with my family. During this time, she ran away from home and was in an abusive relationship with a guy who was 24 (she was a few months away from turning 18 at this point). Her and I were still in contact at this point incase she needed help. She did and came to stay at my house for a couple nights. During this time, she told my fiancé that she used to have a crush on him when he and I first started dating. A few months later, he picked her up and took her to a park to try to talk to her and help her. My sister doesn't have almost any friends and has a personality disorder making friendships hard to maintain. While they were at the park, my sister looked at my fiance and said " You know if you wanted to do anything, I wouldn't tell anyone." My fiancé immediately took her home and told me what had happened. I have had very limited contact with my sister since and made it abundantly clear I do not wish to pursue a relationship with her at this point. I still see her at family functions but other than that we are no contact.

Recently, my fiancé and I started planning our wedding. While talking to my mother, I told her my sister wasn't on the guest list and my mother got upset. My mother wants me to invite my sister because "she is family". I am already estranged from most of my other family because of differing political and religious beliefs. None of my Aunts, Uncles, or cousins are invited to my wedding either. When I reiterated I didn't want her at my wedding despite her being my sister, my mother tried to question me about what happened and make it seem like a big misunderstanding. When that didn't work, she brought up my sister's personality disorder and tried to make it seem like my sister can't help it. Except I also have the same personality disorder. This is not the first time my mom has enabled her or tried to downplay stuff either. I told my mom that having a personality disorder doesn't excuse what my sister did, and I still want no contact with her a

The process of elimination argument for moral realism:

Premise 1. Moral realism is one of four logically exhaustive alternatives. Either at least some moral claims refer to a property or nothing does, and either the property depends on observers or it does not.

Premise 2. The logically exhaustive alternatives to moral realism are false. At least some moral claims refer to a property, and the property does not depend on observers.

Conclusion 3. Therefore, moral realism is true.

Premise 1 is trivially obvious. If we say moral statements don’t purport to refer to a property at all, then we have ethical non-cognitivism (NC). If we say moral statements purport to refer to a property, but nothing has that property, then we have nihilism. If we say moral statements purport to refer to a property, some things have that property, but the property depends on observers, then we have subjectivism. Finally, if we say moral statements purport to refer to a property, some things have that property, and that property doesn’t depend on observers, then we have moral realism. Those are all of the possibilities.

I recommend breaking the question up into its discrete stages and evaluating each claim on its own in order to decide on your meta theory of morals. That is, first try to decide whether you think moral statements refer to something, then try to determine whether anything has the property in question, then whether it is observer-dependent.

Ethical Non-Cognitivism

i. Ethical statements do not purport to refer to a property/attribute/characteristic. Ethical statements are neither true nor false. Eg., to say "Murder is wrong" is really to say "boo murder" or "ewe! Murder!" (Ethical Non-cognitivism)

The Problem With Non-Cognitivism:

Pleasure is good.

How should we understand that statement? The most straightforward answer is the cognitivist one. Ethical cognitivism is the view that evaluative statements like 'Pleasure is good' assert propositions, which can be either true or false, just like the statements 'The sky is red' and 'Weasels are mammals.' Given this, the most straightforward account of what the word 'good' is doing in the sentence is this: there is a property, goodness, which the word refers to, and the sentence ascribes that property to pleasure.

Non-cognitivists deny that 'good' denotes a property, and they deny that 'Pleasure is good' asserts anything in the way that 'Weasels are mammals' does. It is thus up to them to give us

I've seen some discourse surrounding that NonCompete discussion questioning the point Vaush was trying to make about Nazi's (and of course the "Nazi's had a point" meme) and found an excerpt from Zizek that I believe really demonstrates the point Vaush was trying to articulate about the nature of Nazism and anti-Semitism. Here is Zizek discussing how anti-Semitism is still wrong even if there are kernels of truth in the Nazi narrative, I found these thoughts to be extremely illuminating:

"Let us suppose, for example, that an objective look would confirm - why not? - that Jews really do financially exploit the rest of the population, that they do sometimes seduce our young daughters, that some of them do not wash regularly. Is it not clear that this has nothing to do with the real roots of anti-Semitism? Here, we have only to remember the Lacanian proposition concerning the pathologically jealous husband: even if all the facts he quotes in support of his jealousy are true, even if his wife really is sleeping around with other men, this does not change one bit the fact that his jealousy is a pathological, paranoid construction...

The proper answer to anti-Semitism is therefore not 'Jews are really not like that' but 'the anti-Semitic idea of the Jew has nothing to do with Jews; the ideological figure of the Jew is a way to stitch up the inconsistencies of our own ideological system" - The Sublime Object of Ideology pg 48-49

I hope we see the point - anti-Semitism isn't about the empirical reality of Jewish people (they are just people after all, with character flaws like every other idiot), the reality of anti-Semitism is the way the narrative functions in the Nazi's psyche. Nazism views the world as a harmonious whole, so if there are social problems, these problems are the result of an outsider, a parasite. This is the nature of anti-Semitism - there are huge problems in the world and the ideological figure of the Jew becomes the 'solution'.

Too Long; Didn't Read

Ether, the token of the Ethereum network is a yielding asset. We can calculate an intrinsic value for the ETH token using traditional finance valuation models.

You can find these in the following spreadsheet. This spreadsheet is read-only and won't be edited to meet the rules of /r/investing, is provided as is.

Hope you enjoy the analysis and motivates an interesting discussion.

Introduction

The cryptocurrency asset space is largely misunderstood by the market resulting in significant inefficiencies in its valuation. From wild speculative valuations in tokens with no specific purpose, to some very significant undervaluations in others. I think the best way to help the market find the fair value of each asset is by building valuation models that root the value of the token in its fundamentals. The expectation is that armed with better models, market inefficiencies will diminish with time.

Intended Readership

This post can be beneficial to those well-versed in traditional finance and fundamental valuation models that do not understand what cryptocurrencies are and see them as shiny magical tokens with no intrinsic value.

On the opposite end of the spectrum it can be beneficial to those well-versed in cryptocurrencies; what they are, their use and purpose and understand their utility. But are not necessarily familiar with financial valuation models.

The large decoupling between these groups of people is probably cause of the severe mispricings occurring in the space. Hopefully this post and the valuation models provided can help bridge the gap between the two.

Understanding Ethereum

Ethereum is a settlement layer capable of executing smart contracts (small programs), in this regard you could consider it as not too dissimilar in functionality to a payment processor (e.g., Visa, Mastercard, Square...) that is also able to host and execute applications, like a Decentralized App Store. This settlement layer is highly decentralized and secure because it relies on thousands of independent nodes validating all the transactions executed on the network; there is no downtime, the network is censorship resistant, and is not owned by any individual or organization. This is the value proposition of the network, not every use case benefits from these properties but for those that do Ethereum is the leading platform.

**Et

Hello community,

in my understanding, current non fungible tokens (NFT) technology is just a pointer to a specific image file stored on a blockchain. The owner of the NFT is the owner of the image on the blockchain but the image data itself can easily be copied and shared. So basically current NFT standards are more or less like a database entry stating that someone owns something.

What if we could easily change that? Imagine an NFT standard that is constantly changing the data of the stored image via a verifiable random function (VRF) that is algorithmically changing based on the passage of time?

When talking about blockchains I'm always talking about the internet of values and that blockchains are the closest resemblance of biological evolutionary processes mirrored onto the digital realm. Implementing a function on NFT's so they can age on a verifiable basis but without the possibility to replicate the input function, wouldn't this completely change the value proposition of "just an image"?

If you for example copy and paste the image, you can never truly own the "actual image" because it is always changing on a mathematical basis that you cannot artificially replicate. So basically what this means in my thought structure is, that the image lives only on the blockchain and only the owner of the NFT with the implemented VRF will ever truly be the owner of the image.

I'm open to your thoughts on my idea and please correct me if some of my fundamentals are incorrect.

Edit: another idea that just arose due to the discussion. Wouldn't it also be amazing to be able to create NFT's that algorithmically age based on their digital age? Like mirroring not only the passing time but also the atomic decay on a digital level? Imagine an NFT that ages like the Mona Lisa does. There could potentially be a whole industry around who creates the best algorithm to most closely resemble "real life" decay on different digital entities. I have even more ideas about NFT's but for now I'll leave it be with the atomic decay :D

Edit 2: I know that I wrote that an image is stored on a blockchain. There are solutions that enable decentralised storage based on blockchain technology, so even though the term "storing an image on a blockchain" may not be correct, there are solutions to do it. It depends on the technology that is being used, but also on how you define it. Let's just no try to crush our thought experiment with too many technical barriers, this thread is more about

This is based on my question from here https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4339454/questions-about-the-epsilon-delta-definition-of-limit-and-understanding-what-it but I still have some doubts.

https://preview.redd.it/96nw6dt51h881.png?width=352&format=png&auto=webp&s=992e37c9979a78750037db54cc564df8ee0cfea3

Basically, I was told that the reverse would fail (ie ∣f(x)−L∣ < ε ⇒ 0 < ∣x−a∣ < δ ) because it only works for strictly monotonic functions, but I do not understand why. Could someone painfully explain exactly why in full detail, because I cannot understand at all.

I was told that "For x close to π, |f(x)|<ϵ but |x|>δ once delta is chosen small enough" but I don't really understand what this means. When x is close to π, |x-π| should not be > δ, why does |x|>δ matter? We would be looking at lim x->π f(x) = 0 not lim x->0 f(x) = 0 so |x|>δ should not matter.

Someone else said that "|f(x)−L|<ϵ could happen at two disjoint intervals of x. " but why does this impact anything since we analyze each interval as a different limit, not |f(x)|<ϵ implies every interval is less than delta, but specific ones for a specific limit right?

My understanding is that for sinx, as x -> 0, ∣sinx∣ < ε ⇒ 0 < ∣x∣ < δ, looks to be fine, same with as x -> π, ∣sinx∣ < ε ⇒ 0 < ∣x- π ∣ < δ. In either separate case, I don't see how the implication fails. There should be a delta for both that works (I think δ =ε should be fine) , although I do not see why the delta would have to be the same for both.

Further, showing that both work (I think):

∣sinx∣ < ∣x∣ < δ = ε, so ∣sinx∣ < ε and ∣x ∣ < δ

∣sinx∣ ≤ ∣x- π ∣ < δ = ε, so ∣sinx∣ < ε and ∣x- π ∣ < δ

Also, if you wanted to prove it false, you would have to prove that

∃ε&gt;0 st ∀δ&gt;0,

∣f(x)−L∣<ε ⇒ 0<∣x−a∣ ≥ δ

which seems impossible to me.

I don't want to step on anybody's toes here, but the amount of non-dad jokes here in this subreddit really annoys me. First of all, dad jokes CAN be NSFW, it clearly says so in the sub rules. Secondly, it doesn't automatically make it a dad joke if it's from a conversation between you and your child. Most importantly, the jokes that your CHILDREN tell YOU are not dad jokes. The point of a dad joke is that it's so cheesy only a dad who's trying to be funny would make such a joke. That's it. They are stupid plays on words, lame puns and so on. There has to be a clever pun or wordplay for it to be considered a dad joke.

Again, to all the fellow dads, I apologise if I'm sounding too harsh. But I just needed to get it off my chest.

Staking Farm will be out today on Harmonize App. Don’t miss out on your chance to get in on High APY returns! App.harmonized.org/pools

👉 What is Santa Elon?

Santa Elon is a Christmas themed coin which rewards its token holders with BNB rewards. Santa taxes 10% of all transactions and distributes a portion of this to holders on Christmas day. They have great developments like – NFTs, Staking, P2E and gamified website features! Only $400k MCAP

👉 How does Santa Elon work? Each transaction (buy, sell or transfer) attracts a 10% fee, which is split in three ways:

🎁 3% is placed into the Christmas Day Presents Wallet 🎯 3% for Marketing 💰 3% Developer Wallet 🔥1% Buy back & Burn

👉 Tokenomics 100,000,000 tokens Max Supply Over 3% burned. Fair Launched No Team Tokens. Current MCAP $400k with CMC and CoinGecko still to come. The coin to watch with Santa Season looming!

💲 Where to buy Santa Elon – HOHOHO? 💲

Contract: 0x7b50c95f065dc48a0ecf8e5f992bf9bb9f4299c5

Santa Elon is working on a play to earn game which incorporates their NFT’s called Meta Santas to allow gamers to earn coins as they play. Santa Elon is the first and only Santa themed coin to incorporate these features. There is so much more on their roadmap which make you wonder how is Santa Elon only $400k mcap while other Santa coins hit multi-millions with no road map and zero potential!

Roadmap

⛄️Website update with Gamification features, leader board, naughty list (incoming)

⛄️Upcoming Advent Calendar & rewards to start off December

⛄️Play2Earn Game – in development

⛄️High APY Farm Pools (launching Today!)

⛄️CoinMarketCap Listing Incoming

⛄️CoinGecko Listing Incoming

Our Partnership with The Harmonized App: Upcoming farming pools with Harmonized App will allow token holders to add to liquidity and earn a high APY on their liquidity tokens. As a result of partnering with The Harmonized App, this will result in a high amount of positive price pressure once the new token staking portal is functional.

Staking naturally skews the market towards a more positive purchasing power, as users are incentivized to lock their tokens up, decreasing the current circulating supply and decreasing the likelihood and number of tokens being sold on the open market. (NFA, DYOR) Santa Elon (HOHOHO) is the only Santa themed coin that offers this unique proposition with a market cap of only $400k. This is definitely a coin to pay to attention to as we approach Christmas.

Transparent devs

There has been a recent influx of discourse about Kalam cosmological arguments in this subreddit. After reading through about a hundred comments, I am disappointed with how us atheists are responding to these arguments. In this post I will look at a couple common objections to Craig's Kalam argument found throughout the subreddit, and explain their shortcomings by introducing stronger reasons to think the argument is unsuccessful. This post is quite long and I expect it to be viewed as more of a resource than a traditional debate post. I do not endorse everything here.

Most users are familiar with Craig’s formulation (KCA) so that is where the majority of my focus will be. His syllogism is as follows:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. (Hence) The universe has a cause of its existence.

I would like to note that there are much better versions than KCA being offered. KCA just happens to be quite popular in apologetics, and therefore counter-apologetics, circles. Graham Oppy provides the most compelling and rigorous responses to KCA, so I will primarily be drawing from him. I might pin a comment below this post of further resources to look at for certain topics.

I will be putting a revised version of this post on my blog.

Does Everything That Begins to Exist Have a Cause?

The first premise of KCA is Craig's familiar causal principle: everything which begins to exist has a cause of its existence. A recurring objection to this principle that I found on the subreddit is that "we don’t actually observe things causing other things to begin existing, for supposed each occurrence of this is nothing but the rearrangement of pre-existing matter."

I fail to see the relationship between the first and second clause of this sentence. The advocate of KCA does not suppose that each instance of something “beginning to exist” is the spontaneous generation of matter or energy that did not exist prior to that thing’s beginning to exist. Suppose we say some table begins existing on December 24th. We are not saying that all of the constitutive matter of this table begins to exist on December 24th, we are instead saying something like that all of the constitutive matter of this table becomes arranged to form a table on December 24th.

There is even a streak of mereological nihilism as an attempt to respond to KCA seen when people argue that we haven’t actually observed macrophysical objects such as tables

Concept animation depicting a smart wind turbine's NFT's connection with the SafeMoon Ecosystem

Yesterday’s SafeMoon Sunday confirmed something I had suspected the team was working on for awhile regarding Non-Fungible Tokens (NFT) within... as John called it in yesterday’s video... the Metaverse Development Experience (MDE). When they announced that the wind turbines introduced in the December Reveal video a week ago would be connected to NFT’s in SafeMoon’s ecosystem to generate dividends for its holders, my mind was at ease, as it had sufficiently melted a week ago when I initially speculated this after watching the video. Now, this post isn’t to pat myself on the back for correctly surmising an important piece of Operation Phoenix, but to outline the value proposition SafeMoon is offering in the crypto space through this effort, as I keep seeing posts and comments questioning why NFT's matter and that the team should be focused on the blockchain, exchange, etc.

Obviously the blockchain matters, and they're working on it. Almost everything featured in yesterday's SafeMoon Sunday video is predicated upon having our own blockchain ledger that the expanding ecosystem will live on. Presumably, the first turbine clusters SafeMoon will deploy will be in Utah. Perhaps on the roof of the new SafeMoon HQ. If wind conditions are favorable for permanent deployment there, this would be a genius PR move to have a crypto HQ running solely on renewable energy in an industry often mired with environmental dilemmas. Even cooler than that will be the fact that they’ll be paying their power bill in SafeMoon through their eventual blockchain as dividends to these wind turbine NFT holders. SafeMoon will inevitably buy the first turbines and test the ERC-721 NFT’s they mint and connect to the turbines for testing.

Wind turbines could be deployed in The Gambia or anywhere with additional functions beyond those outlined below.

MDE NFT Function
If executed properly, these NFT’s would essentially be: 1) a virtual lease for a share of a physical SafeMoon wind turbine. SafeMoon could make these function like modern timeshares where you: 2) only reap the rewards for a specified period of time— for example, two years, and 3) only **receive a portion of

Do your worst!

Not sure if this is the place to ask, but is anyone here working in this field? Its a small field and Im having trouble finding people working in it. The majority of it also seems to be focused on geometry and physical space, early childhood learning, and counting. I'm interested in how high-level mathematical logic and abstraction is processed in the brain, not necessarily discrete counting. Specifically, Im interested in how mathematicans think when writing proofs. If this is considered off-topic let me know.

As title says, what are your favourite maths-related quotes? Here are six of my favourites:

“I have discovered a truly remarkable proof of this theorem which this margin is too small to contain.” - Pierre de Fermat, c. 1640, on what became Fermat’s Last Theorem.

[After proving 1+1=2 in the language of formal mathematical logic] “The above proposition is occasionally useful.” - Principia Mathematica, 1910.

“In the fall of 1972, President Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing. This was the first time a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for re-election.” - Hugo Rossi, 1996.

“Do not disturb my circles.” - Archimedes (possibly apocryphal), c. 212 BCE.

“Oh, that? They grow in my garden.” - Roger Apèry, 1979, when asked how he had developed a formula which helped show that the Riemann Zeta function evaluated at 3 was irrational.

“You know, for a mathematician, he did not have enough imagination. But he has become a poet and now he is fine.” - David Hilbert, on a student of his who dropped mathematics to study poetry.

EDIT: Evidently people liked this. I hope, like I have, people have discovered new maths quotes that resonate with them! Here’s one more from me, which one of my teachers said in response to a question I had one day.

Me: “This is fine and all, but why are we doing this? What is the use?”

Teacher: “Why are we doing this? Because it’s there and because it’s nice.”

For context I'm a Refuse Driver (Garbage man) & today I was on food waste. After I'd tipped I was checking the wagon for any defects when I spotted a lone pea balanced on the lifts.

I said "hey look, an escaPEA"

No one near me but it didn't half make me laugh for a good hour or so!

Edit: I can't believe how much this has blown up. Thank you everyone I've had a blast reading through the replies 😂

It really does, I swear!

Because she wanted to see the task manager.

Loom Network (loomx.io) has beta SDK that can be used to spawn side chains with dPOS which can be as decentralized as the creator of dapp wants. They already have an example dapp live (delegatecall.com). They also have many blockchain based games in the pipeline (https://medium.com/loom-network/loom-network-sdk-alpha-release-first-5-dappchains-announced-sdk-roadmap-1dddec789004).

About a month ago I compiled a long crypto dictionary for people who are either new, out of the loop or just lurking around. As we are witnessing a massive influx of new crypto investors and users here, I was asked by the Redditors to post the updated version after Christmas. After somehow catching COVID a few days ago, I have a lot of free time on my hands so I decided to update the dictionary with all the suggestions people added in the previous post and a lot of new content to help out the newbies and veterans alike.

With expressions like "HODL", "FOMO", "DAO", "ATH", "LP" we can sometimes sound alien to people who aren't into cryptospace.

Are you new to crypto and want to join in the conversation? Lets go boys and girls, grab your cocoa and get cosy cause this is gonna be a long ride. ^((ps. please send some bandages for my fingers and carpal tunnel treatment braces for my poor wrists).)

Too Long; Didn't Read

We can calculate an intrinsic value for the ETH token using traditional finance valuation models. You can find this in the following spreadsheet.

Merry Flippening!

Introduction

The cryptocurrency asset space is largely misunderstood by the market resulting in significant inefficiencies in its valuation. From wild speculative valuations in tokens with no specific purpose, to some very significant undervaluations in others. I think the best way to help the market find the fair value of each asset is by building valuation models that root the value of the token in its fundamentals. The expectation is that armed with better models, market inefficiencies will diminish with time.

Intended Readership

This post can be beneficial to those well-versed in traditional finance and fundamental valuation models that do not understand what cryptocurrencies are and see them as shiny magical tokens with no intrinsic value.

On the opposite end of the spectrum it can be beneficial to those well-versed in cryptocurrencies; what they are, their use and purpose and understand their utility. But are not necessarily familiar with financial valuation models.

The large decoupling between these groups of people is probably cause of the severe mispricings occurring in the space. Hopefully this post and the valuation models provided can help bridge the gap between the two.

Understanding Ethereum

Ethereum is a settlement layer capable of executing smart contracts (small programs), in this regard you could consider it as not too dissimilar in functionality to a payment processor (e.g., Visa, Mastercard, Square...) that is also able to host and execute applications, like a Decentralized App Store. This settlement layer is highly decentralized and secure because it relies on thousands of independent nodes validating all the transactions executed on the network; there is no downtime, the network is censorship resistant, and is not owned by any individual or organization. This is the value proposition of the network, not every use case benefits from these properties but for those that do Ethereum is the leading platform.

Ethereum Monetary Policy

To pay for the security and decentralization the network pays its validators, remunerating them for their work. Additionally, this remuneration serves as an incentive for anyone to join the vali

The process of elimination argument for moral realism:

Premise 1. Moral realism is one of four logically exhaustive alternatives. Either at least some moral claims refer to a property or nothing does, and either the property depends on observers or it does not.

Premise 2. The logically exhaustive alternatives to moral realism are false. At least some moral claims refer to a property, and the property does not depend on observers.

Conclusion 3. Therefore, moral realism is true.

Premise 1 is trivially obvious. If we say moral statements don’t purport to refer to a property at all, then we have ethical non-cognitivism (NC). If we say moral statements purport to refer to a property, but nothing has that property, then we have nihilism. If we say moral statements purport to refer to a property, some things have that property, but the property depends on observers, then we have subjectivism. Finally, if we say moral statements purport to refer to a property, some things have that property, and that property doesn’t depend on observers, then we have moral realism. Those are all of the possibilities.

I recommend breaking the question up into its discrete stages and evaluating each claim on its own in order to decide on your meta theory of morals. That is, first try to decide whether you think moral statements refer to something, then try to determine whether anything has the property in question, then whether it is observer-dependent.

Ethical Non-Cognitivism

i. Ethical statements do not purport to refer to a property/attribute/characteristic. Ethical statements are neither true nor false. Eg., to say "Murder is wrong" is really to say "boo murder" or "ewe! Murder!" (Ethical Non-cognitivism)

The Problem With Non-Cognitivism:

Pleasure is good.

How should we understand that statement? The most straightforward answer is the cognitivist one. Ethical cognitivism is the view that evaluative statements like 'Pleasure is good' assert propositions, which can be either true or false, just like the statements 'The sky is red' and 'Weasels are mammals.' Given this, the most straightforward account of what the word 'good' is doing in the sentence is this: there is a property, goodness, which the word refers to, and the sentence ascribes that property to pleasure.

Non-cognitivists deny that 'good' denotes a property, and they deny that 'Pleasure is good' asserts anything in the way that 'Weasels are mammals' does. It is thus up to them to give us

If anyone is able to help out, I have a question related to interpreting the following passage:

“In some formulations of propositional logic, one uses “t,” “f” as symbols of the object language itself; these symbols are then called propositional constants. And a Boolean valuation is redefined by adding the condition that t must be given the value truth and f falsehood. [Thus, e.g. t by itself is a tautology; f is unsatisfiable; X ⇒ t is a tautology (where X is a formula); f ⇒ X is a tautology. Also, under any Boolean valuation t ⇒ Y has the same truth value as Y; X ⇒ f has the opposite value to X. Thus t ⇒ Y is a tautology iff Y is a tautology; X ⇒ f is a tautology iff X is unsatisfiable].”

If I’m understanding this correctly, it seems to make sense to me that t by itself would be a tautology, as t would presumably be given the value truth in all evaluations, while likewise f is unsatisfiable because it is never given the value truth, but I’m not understand why it would be a tautology that X implies t or that f implies X. If X, as a formula, is either a proposition or a combination of a proposition(s) and logical function(s), is this to say that X itself is t, meaning that if Boolean values were assigned, X would have the value of truth? The I don’t see why this would be the case, as there can obviously be formulas that wouldn’t have the value of truth given to them. For example, if we were to say X is “P ∧ ~P,” presumably the fact that we’re talking about X doesn’t imply that X is true (or would be true if we were to assign Boolean values). This doesn’t seem to be what’s meant, but I don’t see what else would be meant by the statement that X implies t. If anyone can point me in the right direction to understanding this, that would be highly appreciated. Thanks.

I'm surprised it hasn't decade.

👉 What is Santa Elon?

Santa Elon is a Christmas themed coin which rewards its token holders with BNB rewards. Santa taxes 10% of all transactions and distributes a portion of this to holders on Christmas day. They have great developments like – NFTs, Staking, P2E and gamified website features! Only $200k MCAP

👉 How does Santa Elon work?

Each transaction (buy, sell or transfer) attracts a 10% fee, which is split in three ways:

🎁 3% is placed into the Christmas Day Presents Wallet

🎯 3% for Marketing

💰 3% Developer Wallet

🔥1% Buy back & Burn

👉 Tokenomics

100,000,000 tokens Max Supply

Over 3% burned.

Fair Launched

No Team Tokens.

Current MCAP $200k with CMC and CoinGecko still to come.

The coin to watch with Santa Season looming!

💲 Where to buy Santa Elon – HOHOHO? 💲

Contract: 0x7b50c95f065dc48a0ecf8e5f992bf9bb9f4299c5

Santa Elon is working on a play to earn game which incorporates their NFT’s called Meta Santas to allow gamers to earn coins as they play. Santa Elon is the first and only Santa themed coin to incorporate these features. There is so much more on their roadmap which make you wonder how is Santa Elon only $200k mcap while other Santa coins hit multi-millions with no road map and zero potential!

Roadmap

⛄️Website update with Gamification features, leader board, naughty list (incoming)

⛄️Upcoming Advent Calendar & rewards to start off December

⛄️Play2Earn Game – in development

⛄️High APY Farm Pools (launching on the 27th of November)

⛄️CoinMarketCap Listing Incoming

⛄️CoinGecko Listing Incoming

Our Partnership with The Harmonized App:

Upcoming farming pools with Harmonized App will allow token holders to add to liquidity and earn a high APY on their liquidity tokens. As a result of partnering with The Harmonized App, this will result in a high amount of positive price pressure once the new token staking portal is functional. Staking naturally skews the market towards a more positive purchasing power, as users are incentivized to lock their tokens up, decreasing the current circulating supply and decreasing the likelihood and number of tokens being sold on the open market. (NFA, DYOR)

Santa Elon (HOHOHO) is the only Santa themed coin that offers this unique proposition with a market cap of only $200k. This is definitely a coin to pay to attention to as we approach Christmas.

Transparent devs – come have a chat with us in Telegram

HOHOHO!

🌐 Website: [https://www.hoh