Taught should be replaced with trough.

No has said it because it’s not true.

My favorite version of this proof:

Let S be the subset of natural numbers that are not interesting. Suppose by way of contradiction that S is inhabited. Then by the well ordering principle of natural numbers, there is a least such element, s in S. In virtue of being the least non interesting number, s is in fact interesting. Hence s is not in S. Since s is in S and not in S, we have derived a contradiction. Therefore our assumption that S is inhabited must be false. Thus S is empty and there are no non interesting numbers.

A group is not an algebra. A group consists of a single associative binary operation with an identity element and inverses for each element.

A ring is an abelian (commutative) group under addition, along with an additional associative binary operation (multiplication) that distributes over addition. The additive identity is called zero.

A field is a ring in which every nonzero element has a multiplicative inverse.

A vector space over a field consists of an abelian group (the vectors) together with scalar multiplication by elements of the field, satisfying distributivity and compatibility conditions.

A non-associative algebra is a vector space equipped with a bilinear multiplication operation that distributes over vector addition and is compatible with scalar multiplication.

An (associative) algebra is a non-associative algebra whose multiplication operation is associative.

You can read more about these definitions online and in textbooks - these are standard definitions. If you are using different definitions, then it would help your case to provide them so we can better understand your claims.

There’s a general negative attitude towards chromium browsers due to some anticompetitive practices pulled by Google in addition to privacy concerns and probably some more issues I’m not aware of. So that includes chrome, but also edge and most other chromium based browsers.

It is. Either we need guns for protection and it is okay to point them at people in certain circumstances, or we don’t need guns for protection and they should be outlawed beyond certified uses like sport shooting, hunting, and collecting. I don’t understand your seeming belief that guns are okay to own, but not okay to use.

The definition I’m aware of for non associative algebras has them distributive by default, so I believe the chain of equations is valid.

It’s not the same, and you kinda answered your own question with that quote. Consider what happens when an object defines both dunder bool and dunder len. It’s possible for dunder len to return 0 while dunder bool returns True, in which case the falsy-ness of the instance would not depend at all on the value of len

Interesting. I think it isn’t unital either otherwise Ω=0.

0=Ω+Ω=Ω+ΩΩ=Ω(1+Ω)=ΩΩ=Ω

For some reason, people will sometimes flip the fraction when calculating decreasing percentages, so this roughly means that the old number of crossings is beyond one hundred percent greater than the current number of border crossings. It’s really dumb

Not sure I understood all the metaphors

🟦🟦🟦🟦

🟨🟨🟨🟨

🟩🟩🟩🟩

🟪🟪🟪🟪

No. I’m just wrong, lol

I think that means alcohol poisoning

It actually means tuberculosis

In Arizona, the RCV proposition didn’t pass because it was bundled with open primaries. The bill was mainly about requiring open primaries with only a small mention of requiring ranked choice voting at the end. I would bet a lot of people here didn’t even know ranked choice voting was on their ballot.

When I was a kid, I literally walked 43 miles from my home one day. Took 15 hours. I just had my parents pick me up when I got to the pizza place - no big deal.

Python and Java are barely comparable. I adore both languages equally and use them about the same amount at work. They are just different tools better suited to different tasks.

Okay. That’s a very convincing analogy. Thanks for the thought out response. Forgive me for being rude.

That is not how Hispanic is used in the dataset. Just read the methodology for crying out loud.

Not unless someone methodologically captures all the accounts through interviews and surveys and turns it into one.

I agree that anecdotes aren’t worthless, but for different reasons. There’s actually a saying that goes, “the plural of anecdote isn’t data.” Anecdotes are just stories. They aren’t data points and they aren’t peer reviewed. If you want to turn anecdotes into data, you have to do the proper interviews and surveys to actually build a dataset and then get the peer review, but at that point we aren’t talking about anecdotes anymore.