An article written by Lee Sonogan
Id never thought I would be seeing mathematical claims straight out of Orwellian literature being justified like this. Or are these paradoxical formulas just clever memes to change objective meaning into a specific narrative? Adding a new value in a sly way can make anything make sense although only weaker in how subjective you want to lay it out. Photons behave differently when they are observed being a fallacy baseline capable of error but there is more than enough reason to have faith in fundamental mathematics existing over 3000 years.
In the equation above might work if the two factories want the 5 machines, on the other hand, do the two factories together provide the best option for the individuals working there or the commercial market as a whole? What is the likelihood the collection of parts will fit correctly as the same as the established matching already showing the highest of results within the survival of the fittest? Then you can keep coming up with such questions to make an algebra mess not fitting in with all the other models that are suitable in comparison.
7 axioms of Euclid are:
- 1.Things which are equal to the same thing are equal to one another.
- 2.If equals are added to equals,the wholes are equal.
- 3.If equals are subtracted from equals,then the remainders are equal.
- 4.Things which coincide with one another are equal to one another.
- 5.The whole is greater than the part.
- 6.Things which are double of the same things are equal to one another.
- 7.Things which are halves of the same things are equal to one another.
An example: If 2x=2y then x=y. Anything else of the balance of numbers is symbolism and unstable metaphorical arguments. Abandoning our closest absolute truths is a lazy tool to in playing god in your own image. De-valuing the positives of history that have been preserved and upheld your status quo; presentation of more self-segregation than useful intention into progress is what I see from those tweets. This is the flaw of such extreme radicalism as it pushes way to fast and does not have the attention span to build beyond planned obsolesce.
Overall it is a poor intersectional influence in change, not willing to address the complex factors more than the extra one. Empowering equilibrium synchronous where the cost of all-encompassing things does not miss out on the one in the acronyms. Grasping time and space as the centre is the basis of logic that keeps the ego in check of reality. Dogmatic in what you believe in is an element outside the lines of facts and a form of anti-intellectualism.
PS – Proof/show your reasoning or its just a juggling act more show than useful