Moderators may have access to logging analytics

It’s done with mirrors. And computers hooked in series. And, as usual, lawyers.

TA is the thing where they draw penises on charts and pretend that it is helpful in making trading decisions, right?

What this hippie doesn't realise is that the answer is B. Because:

A. It's always b.
B. He shows it's b.

He missed key assumptions such as using a light inextensible string, required for this simple illustration to demonstrate newtons first law of inertia and circular motion. It is not supposed to be analysed to the nth degree by this nerd.

Yea. The "What Everyone Gets Wrong" is sort of clickbait. But I found the analysis of the effects of a real string on the experiment pretty interesting. I imagine engineers appreciate it.


PairTheBoard

Engineers do silly things like designing bridges that do not collapse in a high wind. Or a railway over a mountain chain, or a large boat that for some unfathomable reason does not sink 100 meters from the dock. It is all a string of illusions. It is worse than the Bible.

Usually a rising penis pattern is bearish.

Wittgenstein: Think of the case of the Liar: It is very queer in a way that this should have puzzled anyone” much more extraordinary than you might think... Because the thing works like this: if a man says 'I am lying' we say that it follows that he is not lying, from which it follows that he is lying and so on. Well, so what? You can go on like that until you are black in the face. Why not? It doesn't matter. ...it is just a useless language-game, and why should anyone be excited?

Turing: What puzzles one is that one usually uses a contradiction as a criterion for having done something wrong. But in this case one cannot find anything done wrong.

Wittgenstein: Yes, and more: nothing has been done wrong, ... where will the harm come?

Turing: The real harm will not come in unless there is an application, in which a bridge may fall down or something of that sort. You cannot be confident about applying your calculus until you know that there are no hidden contradictions in it.

Wittgenstein: There seems to me an enormous mistake there. ... Suppose I convince [someone] of the paradox of the Liar, and he says, 'I lie, therefore I do not lie, therefore I lie and I do not lie, therefore we have a contradiction, therefore 2x2 = 369.' Well, we should not call this 'multiplication,' that is all...

Turing: Although you do not know that the bridge will fall if there are no contradictions, yet it is almost certain that if there are contradictions it will go wrong somewhere.

Wittgenstein: But nothing has ever gone wrong that way yet...

Turing: You cannot be confident about applying your calculus until you know that there is no hidden contradiction in it.

Wittgenstein: There seems to me to be an enormous mistake there. For your calculus gives certain results, and you want the bridge not to break down. I’d say things can go wrong is only two ways: either the bridge breaks down or you have made a mistake in your calculation – for example, you multiplied wrongly. But you seem to think that there may be a third thing wrong: the calculus is wrong.

Turing: No. What I object to is the bridge falling down.

Wittgenstein: But how do you know that it will fall down? Isn’t that a question of physics?

Turing: If one takes Frege’s symbolism and gives someone the technique of multiplying in it, then by using a Russell paradox he could get a wrong multiplication.

Wittgenstein: This would come to doing something which we would not call multiplying… The point I’m driving at is that Frege and Russell’s logic is not the basis for arithmetic anyway – contradiction or no contradiction.

Yes, Brian, everyone can sing. People sing at football matches. But not dancing, that's different.