<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Objectively True</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.objectivelytrue.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.objectivelytrue.com</link>
	<description>forcibly extracting meaning from everything (syncretically)</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:58:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on &#8220;American Philosopher&#8221;, part 2 by Phillip McReynolds</title>
		<link>http://www.objectivelytrue.com/philosophy/2011/04/29/american-philosopher-part-2-2/comment-page-1/#comment-8296</link>
		<dc:creator>Phillip McReynolds</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:58:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.objectivelytrue.com/?p=479#comment-8296</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the close read of the film!  It&#039;s entirely possible that it&#039;s more than it can sustain.  This is entirely my fault and not at all attributable to its contributors.  In any case, your comments are thoughtful and provocative.  More later.  All the best, -- PM</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the close read of the film!  It&#8217;s entirely possible that it&#8217;s more than it can sustain.  This is entirely my fault and not at all attributable to its contributors.  In any case, your comments are thoughtful and provocative.  More later.  All the best, &#8212; PM</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on &#8220;American Philosopher&#8221;, part 0 by Andrew H</title>
		<link>http://www.objectivelytrue.com/philosophy/2011/04/19/american-philosopher-part-0/comment-page-1/#comment-6265</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew H</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Apr 2011 08:50:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.objectivelytrue.com/?p=437#comment-6265</guid>
		<description>It looks like a fun series. I&#039;ll check back for later links and commentary if and when the entire series becomes available online.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It looks like a fun series. I&#8217;ll check back for later links and commentary if and when the entire series becomes available online.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on When is x + x = x more true than x + x = 2x? by Benxamin</title>
		<link>http://www.objectivelytrue.com/philosophy/2011/02/17/is-x-x-2x-or-x-x-x/comment-page-1/#comment-6262</link>
		<dc:creator>Benxamin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Apr 2011 04:09:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.objectivelytrue.com/?p=403#comment-6262</guid>
		<description>Diffy Q? Meh. What will help our dear Mr. Murtha is a healthy dose of abstract algebra. 
 
The positive integers that are referred to in these examples are a set. Well, a particular set we call the Real numbers, mostly out of deference to their direct physical analogues (any counted object). 

In math, as in the physical realm, Real numbers have an identity (a + i = a), and that identity is zero. Any Real number(a) plus it&#039;s identity(0), equals itself(a). 

In a set of numbers defined by [mod 4], the identity is 4. Given 2, and you add four (then you get 6, and then you mod 4 to stay in the set, and finally) the result is 2. 
In this set, 2 + 4 = 2. 
1 + 4 = 1. 
3 + 4 = 3. 
0 + 4 = 0. 
Any mod x set contains the numbers 0 through x (by definition). 

Given a set of numbers you can infer certain properties from them. Based on the properties, they may be a formal group, ring or module. If you take any two numbers and perform some operation, it&#039;s called a binary operation. And if you use three numbers it&#039;s a ternary operation. But guess what? A ternary operation is just two sequential binary operations. So most all operations reduce down to binary. 

All subtraction is addition in reverse. All multiplication is addition in fast forward. All division is multiplication in reverse. 
Given two numbers, you have only one operation on them: addition. 

And one more biggie: commutativity! 
When A operating on B (AB) yields the same result as B operating on A (AB = BA), then you have the commutative property. In your Real numbers examples the operations of addition and multiplication are perfect examples of the commutative property. 

In binary terms:
a * b = ab
b * a = ba
ab = ba for Real number multiplication

a + b = ab
b + a = ba
ab = ba for Real number addition. 

This is very convenient for us to have Real number commutative addition. It makes learning to count WAAAYY easier. 1 + 1 always equals 2. 

Now outside of the Real numbers set, you can have sets of numbers where 1 + 1 = 0 (inverse) or 1 + 1 = 1 (identity) and/or 1 + 1 = 11 (depends on how you write it: A operating on A equals AA, literally) and 1 + 1 = 3456 (make your own rules). 

Again, depending on the relationships between the numbers, you could have a ring, a group,  an albelian group or a module, or an algebra or lots of made up stuff that creates abstractions from abstractions. Math is fun, but let&#039;s take off...

&quot;Complete abstraction is the natural state of the mind.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Diffy Q? Meh. What will help our dear Mr. Murtha is a healthy dose of abstract algebra. </p>
<p>The positive integers that are referred to in these examples are a set. Well, a particular set we call the Real numbers, mostly out of deference to their direct physical analogues (any counted object). </p>
<p>In math, as in the physical realm, Real numbers have an identity (a + i = a), and that identity is zero. Any Real number(a) plus it&#8217;s identity(0), equals itself(a). </p>
<p>In a set of numbers defined by [mod 4], the identity is 4. Given 2, and you add four (then you get 6, and then you mod 4 to stay in the set, and finally) the result is 2.<br />
In this set, 2 + 4 = 2.<br />
1 + 4 = 1.<br />
3 + 4 = 3.<br />
0 + 4 = 0.<br />
Any mod x set contains the numbers 0 through x (by definition). </p>
<p>Given a set of numbers you can infer certain properties from them. Based on the properties, they may be a formal group, ring or module. If you take any two numbers and perform some operation, it&#8217;s called a binary operation. And if you use three numbers it&#8217;s a ternary operation. But guess what? A ternary operation is just two sequential binary operations. So most all operations reduce down to binary. </p>
<p>All subtraction is addition in reverse. All multiplication is addition in fast forward. All division is multiplication in reverse.<br />
Given two numbers, you have only one operation on them: addition. </p>
<p>And one more biggie: commutativity!<br />
When A operating on B (AB) yields the same result as B operating on A (AB = BA), then you have the commutative property. In your Real numbers examples the operations of addition and multiplication are perfect examples of the commutative property. </p>
<p>In binary terms:<br />
a * b = ab<br />
b * a = ba<br />
ab = ba for Real number multiplication</p>
<p>a + b = ab<br />
b + a = ba<br />
ab = ba for Real number addition. </p>
<p>This is very convenient for us to have Real number commutative addition. It makes learning to count WAAAYY easier. 1 + 1 always equals 2. </p>
<p>Now outside of the Real numbers set, you can have sets of numbers where 1 + 1 = 0 (inverse) or 1 + 1 = 1 (identity) and/or 1 + 1 = 11 (depends on how you write it: A operating on A equals AA, literally) and 1 + 1 = 3456 (make your own rules). </p>
<p>Again, depending on the relationships between the numbers, you could have a ring, a group,  an albelian group or a module, or an algebra or lots of made up stuff that creates abstractions from abstractions. Math is fun, but let&#8217;s take off&#8230;</p>
<p>&#8220;Complete abstraction is the natural state of the mind.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on When is x + x = x more true than x + x = 2x? by Jackson Murtha</title>
		<link>http://www.objectivelytrue.com/philosophy/2011/02/17/is-x-x-2x-or-x-x-x/comment-page-1/#comment-4758</link>
		<dc:creator>Jackson Murtha</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2011 02:48:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.objectivelytrue.com/?p=403#comment-4758</guid>
		<description>Yes, differential equations... I need to get me some more of them....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, differential equations&#8230; I need to get me some more of them&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on When is x + x = x more true than x + x = 2x? by Tony Heiser</title>
		<link>http://www.objectivelytrue.com/philosophy/2011/02/17/is-x-x-2x-or-x-x-x/comment-page-1/#comment-4655</link>
		<dc:creator>Tony Heiser</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Feb 2011 04:48:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.objectivelytrue.com/?p=403#comment-4655</guid>
		<description>1+1=2, but 0+0 =0.  You might enjoy differential equations...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>1+1=2, but 0+0 =0.  You might enjoy differential equations&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Augustana College&#8217;s 150 Books to Read by jackson</title>
		<link>http://www.objectivelytrue.com/reviews/2010/10/27/augustana-colleges-150-books-to-read/comment-page-1/#comment-3563</link>
		<dc:creator>jackson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 Oct 2010 05:50:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.objectivelytrue.com/?p=369#comment-3563</guid>
		<description>Thanks Jan,

I did try not to accuse the list of providing a list of the greatest or best books, though in my recommendations I have applied a more stringent triage, which perhaps implies it.

I actually don&#039;t dislike fiction, but I do have one great difficulty with it which might sound just a bit ridiculous:
My lifespan is finite, and the number of great books out there is certainly beyond what I can take in.  It seems to me that a great number of fiction books are primarily geared towards entertainment, rather than teaching something.  While not true of all fiction, it seems to me a safe assumption that nonfiction books are more likely to be intended to edify than fiction books.  If I get the same enjoyment out of fiction and nonfiction*, but I am more likely to learn from the nonfiction (because it is intended to teach or because I more clearly discern the lesson, perhaps), then the nonfiction seems to me to be the better choice.  In some cases, I fiction can teach as well or better, than nonfiction.  However, in most cases, nonfiction is a better, or at least more efficient teacher... and I am very much in favor of efficient self-improvement!

I want to thank you for compiling the list; I love both it and the idea of it!  I actually prefer it as a list of recommendations rather than an official &quot;best&quot; list.  Generating something for to discuss is key, if you ask me.  If I could, I would love to take the time to catalog all of the faculty books and gather statistics on which books are popular!  I am a member of a website called librarything, which contains personal and library catalogs with which I can compare my own book collection.  They even have a large project called Legacy Libraries, in which historic figures&#039;s libraries are re-created, often with details right down to the proper edition of each book that each figure owned.  I see a number of the books from those libraries featured here (I think among all the legacy library members, Don Quixote narrowly beat the Bible for most-owned).  It&#039;s quite fascinating.

Thanks again!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks Jan,</p>
<p>I did try not to accuse the list of providing a list of the greatest or best books, though in my recommendations I have applied a more stringent triage, which perhaps implies it.</p>
<p>I actually don&#8217;t dislike fiction, but I do have one great difficulty with it which might sound just a bit ridiculous:<br />
My lifespan is finite, and the number of great books out there is certainly beyond what I can take in.  It seems to me that a great number of fiction books are primarily geared towards entertainment, rather than teaching something.  While not true of all fiction, it seems to me a safe assumption that nonfiction books are more likely to be intended to edify than fiction books.  If I get the same enjoyment out of fiction and nonfiction*, but I am more likely to learn from the nonfiction (because it is intended to teach or because I more clearly discern the lesson, perhaps), then the nonfiction seems to me to be the better choice.  In some cases, I fiction can teach as well or better, than nonfiction.  However, in most cases, nonfiction is a better, or at least more efficient teacher&#8230; and I am very much in favor of efficient self-improvement!</p>
<p>I want to thank you for compiling the list; I love both it and the idea of it!  I actually prefer it as a list of recommendations rather than an official &#8220;best&#8221; list.  Generating something for to discuss is key, if you ask me.  If I could, I would love to take the time to catalog all of the faculty books and gather statistics on which books are popular!  I am a member of a website called librarything, which contains personal and library catalogs with which I can compare my own book collection.  They even have a large project called Legacy Libraries, in which historic figures&#8217;s libraries are re-created, often with details right down to the proper edition of each book that each figure owned.  I see a number of the books from those libraries featured here (I think among all the legacy library members, Don Quixote narrowly beat the Bible for most-owned).  It&#8217;s quite fascinating.</p>
<p>Thanks again!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Augustana College&#8217;s 150 Books to Read by Jan Brue Enright</title>
		<link>http://www.objectivelytrue.com/reviews/2010/10/27/augustana-colleges-150-books-to-read/comment-page-1/#comment-3555</link>
		<dc:creator>Jan Brue Enright</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Oct 2010 20:15:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.objectivelytrue.com/?p=369#comment-3555</guid>
		<description>Well, Jackson, it looks like you have some reading to do! As the person who compiled this list, you may notice it is not the &quot;best&quot;, but simply the most recommended list.
 I think you would do well to remember my mother&#039;s important advice: There Is No Accounting For Taste. People like what they like, and that is perfectly OK. You don&#039;t like fiction (which shocks me to the core), but after years in library work I understand that someone else can&#039;t talk you into liking fiction. Although I may keep trying. Same way with me and mysteries. Just don&#039;t like &#039;em. So . . take the Augie list for what it was and is: a snapshot from a wide variety of people with a wide variety of reading tastes. And isn&#039;t that what makes the world so interesting?
Happy reading!   Jan</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, Jackson, it looks like you have some reading to do! As the person who compiled this list, you may notice it is not the &#8220;best&#8221;, but simply the most recommended list.<br />
 I think you would do well to remember my mother&#8217;s important advice: There Is No Accounting For Taste. People like what they like, and that is perfectly OK. You don&#8217;t like fiction (which shocks me to the core), but after years in library work I understand that someone else can&#8217;t talk you into liking fiction. Although I may keep trying. Same way with me and mysteries. Just don&#8217;t like &#8216;em. So . . take the Augie list for what it was and is: a snapshot from a wide variety of people with a wide variety of reading tastes. And isn&#8217;t that what makes the world so interesting?<br />
Happy reading!   Jan</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Is there a little paradox here? by jackson</title>
		<link>http://www.objectivelytrue.com/philosophy/2009/10/15/is-there-a-little-paradox-here/comment-page-1/#comment-1372</link>
		<dc:creator>jackson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:54:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.objectivelytrue.com/?p=297#comment-1372</guid>
		<description>Curious. For me, &quot;Any&quot; was the real hairy word here, because, if the statement is true, arguments from induction are unverifiable (or, if you dislike verification, let&#039;s use a weaker term like &quot;justifiable&quot;). Yet this statement generalizes, having not observed the entire class of statements which are based in induction. Thus, until EVERY inductive statement can be shown to fail the test of verification, this statement has extrapolated from a potentially unfairly-generalized inductive observation. If, however, the original claim was shown to be true by examining every possible such statement, it was shown to be verifiable even when the statement was only an inductive generalization (and thus, simultaneously false)...maybe?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Curious. For me, &#8220;Any&#8221; was the real hairy word here, because, if the statement is true, arguments from induction are unverifiable (or, if you dislike verification, let&#8217;s use a weaker term like &#8220;justifiable&#8221;). Yet this statement generalizes, having not observed the entire class of statements which are based in induction. Thus, until EVERY inductive statement can be shown to fail the test of verification, this statement has extrapolated from a potentially unfairly-generalized inductive observation. If, however, the original claim was shown to be true by examining every possible such statement, it was shown to be verifiable even when the statement was only an inductive generalization (and thus, simultaneously false)&#8230;maybe?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Installing e17 on (k)ubuntu jaunty jackalope by jackson</title>
		<link>http://www.objectivelytrue.com/uncategorized/2009/05/03/installing-e17-on-kubuntu-jaunty-jackalope/comment-page-1/#comment-913</link>
		<dc:creator>jackson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:00:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.objectivelytrue.com/?p=219#comment-913</guid>
		<description>Thanks, I&#039;ll take a look at that.  I know also that edje now requires lua &gt; 5.10, so I will have to update the post to reflect that as well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks, I&#8217;ll take a look at that.  I know also that edje now requires lua > 5.10, so I will have to update the post to reflect that as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Installing e17 on (k)ubuntu jaunty jackalope by tartan</title>
		<link>http://www.objectivelytrue.com/uncategorized/2009/05/03/installing-e17-on-kubuntu-jaunty-jackalope/comment-page-1/#comment-910</link>
		<dc:creator>tartan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:34:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.objectivelytrue.com/?p=219#comment-910</guid>
		<description>at the moment two package names in repos are changed:libglib-2.0-dev is now libglib2.0-dev and libcurl3-dev is now a virtual package provided by libcurl4-openssl-dev, at least in crunchbang jaunty it is so.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>at the moment two package names in repos are changed:libglib-2.0-dev is now libglib2.0-dev and libcurl3-dev is now a virtual package provided by libcurl4-openssl-dev, at least in crunchbang jaunty it is so.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

