The number of people that want to quote native Americans and talk about how native Americans were screwed over by the white man and how terrible it is all the things that have been done to them divided by the people in that group who are willing to give up their property and their lives and move back to their ancestral homes is the same as any number divided by 0.
And I’m saying this as a Lakota man.
You don’t want to actually do anything about the problem with native americans.
You just want to feel Superior to other people.
But don’t get off of your high horse because I’m sure the fall will kill you.
imagine thinking American colonialism doesn’t affect anyone outside America. not to mention the person who said they advocated for decolonization didn’t say for America only, so it’s even more absurd. news flash: colonialism affected the entire world.
I don’t know if you’re being obtuse or if you’re just not getting it.
My statement was that the people who use native American sayings to make themselves feel Superior to other people are fundamentally incapable of putting their money where their mouth is.
You’re saying “I’m all for other people putting their money where my mouth is” as if that somehow accomplishes anything or refutes my point.
You don’t seem to understand how stupid/pointless/arrogant/self-serving that is.
If I had money to own land, I’d return it to the appropriate tribe. I’m actively decolonizing my life and support the return of all federal land to tribes along with reparations. Don’t put words in my mouth
I’m not doing it because I believe I’m a savior. I’m doing it because it’s the right thing to do. My point is that broad sweeping statements aren’t helpful and efforts to progress AIM and the landback movement are far more worthwhile.
If you plot out any number divided by x, as x approaches 0 the answer goes towards Infinity, yes.
When it reaches zero it ceases to be a number.
Every number divided by 0 is “undefined”, and it is not undefined because we can’t describe it, it is undefined because it does not exist, because you cannot divide things by 0.
You might say that if you don’t divide a number the number remains itself. But you are saying to divide a number by not dividing the number.
That mathematical process does not work. One or the other must be true for the operation to happen.
You might be saying that an infinite amount of nothing can go into any something, but that is also not true. For there to be nothing, there cannot be something.
Zero is not a number in and of itself save for when it is literally the descriptor of the lack of the existence of a quantity.
Trying to divide a number by zero is like trying to divide existence by non-existence. If existence exists, then there is no non-existence to divide it with.
Therefore you cannot mathematically compute how much non-existence there is in existence.
No. The standard field (that is, a ring where both operations are abelian groups) on the complex numbers doesn’t have a multiplicative inverse of 0; rings can’t have a multiplicative inverse for the additive identity. You can create an algebra with a ring as a sub-algebra with such, but it will no longer be a ring. My preferred method is to impose such an algebra on the one-point compactification of the Complex Numbers, where the single added point is denoted as “Ω”.
I started this project when I was 12, and when I could show that the results were self-consistent this was what I had settled on:
let z be a complex number that is not otherwise specified by the following equations. Note: the complex numbers contain the Real numbers, and so the following equations apply to the them as well.
0Ω=Ω0=1
z+Ω=Ω+z=zΩ=Ωz=Ω=ΩΩ
Ω-Ω=0. Ω-Ω=Ω+(-Ω)=Ω+(-1Ω)=Ω+Ω=0
The algebra described above is not associative. That is to say, (AB)C does not always equal A(BC).
This is a logical fallacy called “ad hominem”, you’re attempting to tear me down as a human being rather than address the salient parts of my argument, and that’s because you don’t actually have a good answer to my argument so you’re just being a dick head.
In this case, me being a native American indicates at least some small portion of the native American viewpoint on a topic that was brought up about native Americans.
Had it not been relevant I would not have mentioned it.
The number of people that want to quote native Americans and talk about how native Americans were screwed over by the white man and how terrible it is all the things that have been done to them divided by the people in that group who are willing to give up their property and their lives and move back to their ancestral homes is the same as any number divided by 0.
And I’m saying this as a Lakota man.
You don’t want to actually do anything about the problem with native americans.
You just want to feel Superior to other people.
But don’t get off of your high horse because I’m sure the fall will kill you.
Are you sure about that? Because I’m pretty much for decolonisation
You can start by getting a passport and looking into emigrating away from the United States.
Edit: well, I guess people don’t like it when I’m flippant, and do like it when db0 condescends to a minority. Good show.
I’m not American and that’s not what decolonisation means anyway
Then what the fuck are you doing talking about American colonialism when it doesn’t fucking affect you?
You are very fucking brave taking a stance that other people should do something you yourself are incapable of doing.
imagine thinking American colonialism doesn’t affect anyone outside America. not to mention the person who said they advocated for decolonization didn’t say for America only, so it’s even more absurd. news flash: colonialism affected the entire world.
I’m capable of caring for things other than my immediate self interest
I don’t know if you’re being obtuse or if you’re just not getting it.
My statement was that the people who use native American sayings to make themselves feel Superior to other people are fundamentally incapable of putting their money where their mouth is.
You’re saying “I’m all for other people putting their money where my mouth is” as if that somehow accomplishes anything or refutes my point.
You don’t seem to understand how stupid/pointless/arrogant/self-serving that is.
Some astronomical projection is going on here.
I didn’t try to make myself superior. I just quoted a Native American. All the rest is your interpretation.
these people are just right wingers trolling right? This has to be a troll
Removed by mod
If I had money to own land, I’d return it to the appropriate tribe. I’m actively decolonizing my life and support the return of all federal land to tribes along with reparations. Don’t put words in my mouth
good for you oh savior
I’m not doing it because I believe I’m a savior. I’m doing it because it’s the right thing to do. My point is that broad sweeping statements aren’t helpful and efforts to progress AIM and the landback movement are far more worthwhile.
A number divided by zero equals infinity.
Except if it’s zero then (so 0/0) it is either undefined or any number IIRC.
If you plot out any number divided by x, as x approaches 0 the answer goes towards Infinity, yes.
When it reaches zero it ceases to be a number.
Every number divided by 0 is “undefined”, and it is not undefined because we can’t describe it, it is undefined because it does not exist, because you cannot divide things by 0.
Funny that you posted this in a dbzer0.com community (dbzer0 = device by zero).
You might say that if you don’t divide a number the number remains itself. But you are saying to divide a number by not dividing the number.
That mathematical process does not work. One or the other must be true for the operation to happen.
You might be saying that an infinite amount of nothing can go into any something, but that is also not true. For there to be nothing, there cannot be something.
Zero is not a number in and of itself save for when it is literally the descriptor of the lack of the existence of a quantity.
Trying to divide a number by zero is like trying to divide existence by non-existence. If existence exists, then there is no non-existence to divide it with.
Therefore you cannot mathematically compute how much non-existence there is in existence.
No. The standard field (that is, a ring where both operations are abelian groups) on the complex numbers doesn’t have a multiplicative inverse of 0; rings can’t have a multiplicative inverse for the additive identity. You can create an algebra with a ring as a sub-algebra with such, but it will no longer be a ring. My preferred method is to impose such an algebra on the one-point compactification of the Complex Numbers, where the single added point is denoted as “Ω”.
I started this project when I was 12, and when I could show that the results were self-consistent this was what I had settled on:
let z be a complex number that is not otherwise specified by the following equations. Note: the complex numbers contain the Real numbers, and so the following equations apply to the them as well.
0Ω=Ω0=1
z+Ω=Ω+z=zΩ=Ωz=Ω=ΩΩ
Ω-Ω=0. Ω-Ω=Ω+(-Ω)=Ω+(-1Ω)=Ω+Ω=0
The algebra described above is not associative. That is to say, (AB)C does not always equal A(BC).
My OpInIoN mAtTeRs MoRe CaUsE iM a lAkOtA mAn.
This is a logical fallacy called “ad hominem”, you’re attempting to tear me down as a human being rather than address the salient parts of my argument, and that’s because you don’t actually have a good answer to my argument so you’re just being a dick head.
In this case, me being a native American indicates at least some small portion of the native American viewpoint on a topic that was brought up about native Americans.
Had it not been relevant I would not have mentioned it.
ad hominem you say.
tHiS iS a LoGiCaL FaLlAcY
I gotta say this one is actually funny (while still wrong)
I gOtTa SaY
Got em
gOt Em