This is what grand wizards of dialectics actually believe

This is what grand wizards of dialectics actually believe

Other urls found in this thread:

treeofpansophia.wordpress.com/2017/08/27/contra-boolean-thinking/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

...

I've stared at that for hours while high as Thor's balls and I still don't get it. While it *could* be 1:1 correspondent to the theory, will anyone ever know?
Making charts of Marx is a horrible idea to begin with. Either you oversimplify, pic related, or you create epic hieroglyphs.

Libertarian here
I'm a bit of a Libertardian actually, can you explain that chart
Also this thread is now a general "Libertardians ask questions" thread so ive got a few
I'm a bit interesting of marxism, I'm not sure where to begin though, the Das Kapital is too large for me, can I have a suggestion as to where to begin my good men?

True

it's a satirical graph made by some butthurt analytic

principles of communism, wage labour and capital, the conquest of bread are all pretty short

...

Thanks my good man, I'll report back once I've read those, in the event I have questions of course.

Ernest Mandel's Intro to Marxist Economics, although its dry and kind of dated

Could I get a source for the image?

makes sense to me

dialectics.org
You can also read Asimov's Foundation trilogy.

treeofpansophia.wordpress.com/2017/08/27/contra-boolean-thinking/

A beginning explanation of how to read the op's graph.

I don't get this. I tried to read Boole's original work (it's on Gutenberg, chapter VI, form III) but still nothing. Everything else is basic set theory.

Let's show these to the guy who read all three volumes of Capital.

I'm in process still of writing that article. It is a formalization of how to understand how much each part of r constitutes r, the size of each of the pieces that build up into the whole.

Remember that 1-x where x is any class is the negation of x, everything except for that which is in the class of x. So, (0/1)·a·(1-h) would be said as: "no animals that are not humans," as 0/1 = 0, or the class of 'nothing,' a refers to the class of animals, and 1-h refers to the negation of h, the class of all human beings. Each of those terms add up to determine the "logical volume" of h, how much each constituent part constitutes the class.

In addition to my last post, thanks for the share AW, I'll add more soon as I have more spare time.

I understand what it is supposed to mean, I just don't get how he arrived at it. Why is 1/0 impossible and what does that even mean? And saying that 0/0 could be anything seems to be a cop out. Just admit that you can't restore the original after the intersection.

Should be noted that we are not talking about typical numbers here, we are talking about Boolean classes 0 and 1, nothing and universe. All existing things divided into nothing is an inconceivable thing, we cannot do that logical division and hence put it as an impossible value. Nothing divided into nothing is an indefinite amount as we cannot properly have any idea of 'counting' nothing, at least when we are talking in terms of Boolean arithmetic. It could be that the indefinite amount of beings that are neither nor animals nor humans could be the very Christian Boole speaking about angels, or maybe far-future android robots.

But (1/0)(1-a)h = r - (1/1)ah - (0/1)a(1-h) - (0/0)(1-a)(1-h).

Which means that the impossible value of not animal humans is exactly what remains of rational beings after you take away all animal humans, no animal non-humans and some, all or none anything else that is not an animal and not a human.

But that's not impossible?

What you have determined is not the constituent parts of the impossible value alone, you have determined the constituent parts of "no non-animals that are human." What it means for there to be an impossible amount of (1-a)·h is that it is impossible for there to be any humans which are non-animal. So yes, there is no disagreement between your derivation and the original law.

Sweet mother of god

here's some more Marxist theory

If I understand the graph correctly, this is some retarded right winger who trying to "prove" that communism will always cause starvation.
If you look at the onion on the top right, look at how commodity is "expropriated" into currency into capital. for some reason this guy thinks that S, social property is taxation

Repost.

That claim is also a repost. And the guy making it has posted long screeds everywhere with nothing analytic in it. So, unless he committed several years of his life to this satirical persona I don't believe that.

OK but
x = 1/1 means 1x=1 which is obviously only if x=1.
y = 0/1 means 1y=0 which is obviously only if y = 0.
z = 0/0 means 0z=0 which means z could be anything.
w = 1/0 means 0w=1 which is impossible.

r = (1/1)·a·h + (0/1)·a·(1-h) + (0/0)·(1-a)·(1-h) + (1/0)·(1-a)·h
then becomes ((0/1)·a·(1-h) = 0 is left out)
r = a·h + z·(1-a)·(1-h) + w·(1-a)·h
Of course we know that (1-a)h is empty, but can we just put it in and forget the impossible term? Or is the whole thing unsolvable now, despite already giving up a concrete answer by introducing the variable?

Boole seems to just ignore the whole thing.