http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_of_Nine
The gal had a rough time of it, the gentleman in me thinks (don't know why) that she deserved better..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Christie reminded me of Julie Christie...... This"numbers" discussion gets into the distinction between the "representational language" and the "thing represented".....in Mathematics, as in most all other "language" systems... people have a tendency to get caught up in the "language-formal" seeming connections between the numbers, and forget about the actual work that they (numbers) are supposed to be doing in tracking the behavior of the "things", themselves.... hence you get "statisticians" ( mostly in the "social" or "human" sciences) who look for "number trends" or formulas that could "logically" be extrapolated as "predictive" of certain results.....Like in economics.....sometimes the "formulas" aren't all that "sound"... other times, the "things" being counted just don't "behave" as expected, for their own reasons.....which the "math practitioner" did not take into account.... I think you and I are in pretty much agreement, Archytas... Odds.... on a horse race.... http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2088263-belmont-stakes-odds-2014-final-predictions-on-latest-vegas-betting-lines Maybe I'll get "lucky" on No. 9...... On Friday, June 6, 2014 6:12:26 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote: > > The answer can be found here Nominal - > http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/Digitsum0.htm - though we await, in > baited breath, for you to tell us what this has to do with the price of > fish. Were you once 8 of 9 and hence on top of Seven (lucky man)? > > I have been thinking of late on the relations between anarchism and > science; specifically why economics is such obfuscatory rot. Anarchy at > its best seeks to remove mystification, and though science gets into > equations and numbers that get tough, these let us do things like firing a > complex catapult build to Mars. Economics just seems to be a system that > tell us we can't do this and that because money will be screwed and should > shut up when we can't talk in numbers and approved bible language. Perhaps > endlessly repeating sums that add up to 9 will turn one economist? Unless > one needs the initial condition of nominal9? > > > On Thursday, 5 June 2014 23:17:44 UTC+1, nominal9 wrote: >> >> examples: >> >> 9x1=9...9+0=9 >> 9x2=18...1+8=9anrchu >> > > > > > >> 9x3=27...2+7=9 >> 9x4=36...3+6=9 >> >> etc. .... ad infinitum (?)though >> >> Is 9.... "nominal" number (?) .... HAR >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
