User talk:JRSpriggs/Archive 4

This is the file "User talk:JRSpriggs/Archive 4" which archives User talk:JRSpriggs.

Relativistic electromagnetism conventions
Hi JRSpriggs, I think I remember that you (unlike me) have gone through the effort of working the sign and other conventions associated with the electromagnetic tensor. If you get a chance, you should check these edits, and undo the incorrect ones, which I think is all of them.

Thanks! :-) --Steve (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I undid the changes to Electromagnetic tensor and Covariant formulation of classical electromagnetism which render those matrices inconsistent with the rest of the articles. You should look more closely at Moving magnet and conductor problem which may require a different kind of change. I no longer want to work on the electromagnetic articles &mdash; it is too much work and not appreciated. There are too many conflicting conventions. JRSpriggs (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Haha, as you can tell I don't want to work on them either! Sorry to bother you. Moving magnet and conductor problem is a royal mess of an article on a very obscure topic...not worth thinking about or correcting IMO. --Steve (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Special relativity
I have done a GA Reassessment of the Special relativity article as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article to need quite a bit of referencing. I have placed the article on hold for a week pending work. I am notifying you, as the primary editor, of this review which can be found here. If there are any questions please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Cross posting
Sorry. I didn't know Wikipedia had a policy against this. And yes, I feel like an idiot, now. Ti-30X (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Subprime Mortgage Crisis
Hello JRSpriggs, I reverted your edit and requested more specific information as to who exactly in Washington the Republican study was admonishing. I left a message on the talk page concerning my revert. Take care. Scribner (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Having a section of quotes in a contentious article should be avoided. Who gets to select the quotes?  It'll end up being a catch all.  Here's one that could be added:


 * "The U.S. economy, once the envy of the world, is now viewed across the globe with suspicion. America has become shackled by an immovable mountain of debt that endangers its prosperity and threatens to bring the rest of the world economy crashing down with it. The ongoing sub-prime mortgage crisis, a result of irresponsible lending policies designed to generate commissions for unscrupulous brokers, presages far deeper problems in a U.S. economy that is beginning to resemble a giant smoke-and-mirrors Ponzi scheme. And this has not been lost on the rest of the world." - Hamid Varzi, International Tribune Scribner (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: FYI
No problem. :) I've been here long enough to not take that sort of thing personally. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 16:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Axiom of regularity proofs
Out of curiosity, can you tell me what the errors were in those two alleged proofs (and what was duplicated)? Thanks. Nortexoid (talk) 03:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I will respond at Talk:Axiom of regularity. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

History of Logic
Hi I am starting work on a complete revision of the above article, with the aim of making it a Featured Article. It is strange that such an important subject has been so neglected in Wikipedia. The current article covers the history up to the pre-modern period relatively well (though it needs some tidying). The parts on modern logic are abysmal however.

I have begun work here. Currently it is a collection of sources (Bochenski mostly - Kneale & Kneale are somewhat uneven on the modern period) which I will develop into an article when I am sure about the balance.

All comments appreciated - on the talk page please. Logicist (talk) 11:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Jobs
That article about the late 2000s recession needs the total amount of jobs lost in June and July for Canada and Australia, so can you please post them as soon as possible? Bob.--76.238.0.49 (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Financial crisis of 2007–2009
You've reverted five times a minor edit I made to correct a minor error in this article. It's clear that you are owning the article, whether you are conscious of it or not. If you want the article to improve, you need to let some other people in to fix it. I'm an academic economist--hardly the kind of person you need to defend this article from.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Many people have made many changes to the article without a peep out of me. Any argument that I am owning the article applies with equal force against you, since you are just as unwilling to compromise on this issue as I am.
 * The version of the second sentence of the second paragraph which you put at Financial crisis of 2007–2009 is "This inflow of funds helped push U.S. interest rates lower, and contributed to easy credit conditions, which fueled both housing and credit bubbles.". The version which I am trying to defend is "This inflow of funds combined with low U.S. interest rates from 2002-2004 contributed to easy credit conditions, which fueled both housing and credit bubbles.".
 * Your version is not incorrect, but it removes the fact that the interest rates from 2002 to 2006 were lower than recommended by the Taylor rule. See page 2 of The Financial Crisis and the Policy Responses: An Empirical Analysis of What Went Wrong. And you also fail to acknowledge the well-known fact that the Federal Reserve System sets a target for the Federal funds rate which it effectively achieves. Banks generally change their prime interest rates within a few days whenever the Fed changes its target.
 * In fact, the Fed can, as I said, change the supply or demand for dollars by more than any reasonable person would want it to do. That is, its power (in that respect) is practically infinite. By buying financial assets, it could flood the economy with enough money to cause hyper-inflation. By selling assets (or allowing them to mature without replacement) and raising reserve and margin requirements, it could cause severe deflation and plunge the country into a depression.
 * The point is that since the Fed controls the amount of credit, it is responsible for interest rates being too low or too high as the case may be and the adverse consequences of that, or it deserves our appreciation if it get them right. JRSpriggs (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My point is that the inflow of funds has no effect except through lowering interest rates. The version you defended treats inflow of funds as a separate force from lower interest rates, which it isn't. You might try to edit it so that it is clear that the inflow of funds combined with Fed discretionary policy lowered interest rates. That would be correct.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Your edit still adopts this erroneous notion of a Fed that can do whatever the heck it wants with interest rates. It can't. Remember Fisher's decomposition of nominal interest rates: real+inflation premium+risk premium. When the Fed tries too hard to push down interest rates by buying bonds, the flood of new money ignites fears of inflation, causing nominal interest rates to rise. The Fed is a 200 pound gorilla in the bond market, granted, but it doesn't determine interest rates, the market determines them--and the market is strongly influenced by net foreign capital flows.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * However, in this case, even the combined efforts of the flood of foreign money and the Fed's attempts to hold interest rates down (in order to avert what they thought was a risk of deflation) did not cause hyper-inflation and loss of control of short rates by the Fed. So how is the sentence, "This inflow of funds made it easier for the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates in the United States too low (by the Taylor rule) from 2002–2006 which contributed to easy credit conditions, leading to the United States housing bubble.", incorrect? JRSpriggs (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * A matter of emphasis--the primacy of the Fed in your sentence. Could just as easily say something like: The Fed's eagerness for low rates made it easier for this inflow of funds to lower interest rates in the United States, contributing to easy credit conditions... --which has the same problem as your edit, it privileges one cause as if it's the primary one.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * But not to mention the Fed at all would also be misleading. Would it not? So what do you suggest? JRSpriggs (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Undid formula change for Levi-Civita Symbol (retained index notation changes).
I reverted one of your edits to the generalized Levi-Civita Symbol formula. I believe original formula was correct. The original formula generated the 3d and 4d cases on a Ti-Nspire CAS. Please resubmit your edits if I am mistaken.

Note that the two versions are identical for dimensions which are 0 or 1 mod 4 (1,4,5,8,9,12...). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.135.173.139 (talk) 02:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * On second thought, I believe you are correct. I was mislead by the special cases above which have the order reversed (except for one subtraction). Thanks for the correction. JRSpriggs (talk) 10:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Partition congruences
Regarding Partition (number theory). I don't think I changed the line about p(13k+7) to anything that contradicts something later in the section. I said there's no congruence of the form p(13k+b)\equiv 0 (13), which is true; there's another congruence listed later on p(ak+b)\equiv 0 (13) in which a is not 13, but that's no contradiction. Or do I miss your point? 4pq1injbok (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Financial crisis of 2007–2009
A couple of thoughts on the G-20 edit -- it works well in the lead since the article is currently tagged for not representing a world view. The edit probably needs to be rewritten in your own words, which would be an easy enough task. I'm not certain about the guidelines on using long quotes, particularly in the lead. All in all, the edit generally cures what ails the lead. Well done. Scribner (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Farcaster seems to disagree with our idea of what a lead should be since he deleted it, saying "Add citation for global economic impact. Remove extra citation of causes, which is covered in body.". JRSpriggs (talk) 02:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

response
Hi JR,

I commented in an old discussion at user talk:Trovatore. --Trovatore (talk) 08:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Just curious
Hi, your user page doesn't say where and when you got your master's. Just curious, and I thought others might be as well. --Michael C. Price talk 10:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * My graduate work was at the Mathematics department of the University of Maryland at College Park. My doctoral thesis adviser was James C. Owings jr.. After seven years of graduate school, I burned out (and ran out of money). So I took a Masters and left before finishing my doctoral thesis (having passed the earlier requirements for a doctorate, although the foreign languages (French and German) were very hard for me). This was in the late 1970s. I do not want to be too specific about time because I do not want to make my birth date known as that might expose me to identity theft. Suffice it to say that I barely remember supporting president Eisenhower's re-election. JRSpriggs (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Integrals of exponential equations
Obviously, you were right about the constant of integration on the exponential equation integration page.I'm sure you realize that, though. However, that is besides the point. Perhaps you have noticed that I have been adding some proofs for those integrations. Is there any chance you would like to help me with that process? It would be appreciated, and you seem to know more than me about the topic, so maybe you could help me work out some of the proofs that I don't know. If you can't, might you at least be willing to check the proofs I write, and let me know if something I say is incorrect? Thanks. Going3killu (talk) 17:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Your second proof might be simplified by using the facts that $$A = e^{\ln A}\,$$ and $$(A^B)^C = A^{(B \cdot C)}\,.$$ JRSpriggs (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

countable; definition vs. theorem
All of the formulations are clearly identical, and we should both instantly agree upon that. However, I've personally never seen the precise definition that is present on the wiki page, I mean defining countability in terms of injections. The standard way to define countability (as seen in any undergraduate text) is in terms of bijections, not injections. The first relevant text on my bookshelf is Cutland, Computability; it's on p. 72. You'll find the same thing in any introductory text that treats the subject even remotely.

It's not important at all. I won't argue that it's not largely semantic. However, given that the current definition is obscure, a more standard definition should at least be present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.121.196 (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

AC
Thanks for catching my mistake at Axiom of choice!

CRGreathouse (t | c) 22:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. I am glad that you are one of the few people who appreciates being corrected rather than resenting it. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Re countable set
Hi JRS. I noticed you reverted my changes to countable set. My thought was that, since it makes no difference here which definition of N one uses, that we could finesse the issue of zero's membership, by avoiding it, and thus hopefully avoiding edits like this this one. Do you think that idea has any merit? Regards Paul August &#9742; 14:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC).
 * I am sorry that I had to revert you. However, we cannot finesse the issue. Later in the article we refer to particular ways of encoding pairs of natural numbers as one natural number, and rational numbers as natural numbers. These examples are necessary to make clear what we are talking about, and they necessarily rely on a definite choice as to whether zero is a natural number or not. Besides which I am firmly convinced that zero is properly included in the natural numbers. Attempts to exclude it for historical reasons always cause difficulties, making definitions and proofs unnecessarily complicated. JRSpriggs (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK (and I should have realized there would be a problem like that with such a change). In any case, I like zero too, but we should avoid the issue where possible. Paul August &#9742; 17:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Header information in archive files
OK. I still don't see the point of that, however. If someone wants to know if it was an archive, they can just check the page history. Graham 87 05:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Socking happening at Deflation
Something very strange is going on at Deflation. The last 4 accounts to edit it are newly created and have edited only the deflation page. Also, they have mostly just added the 'cn' tag. Given that we just had a heated (for my part in it, I apologize) conversation where the 'cn' template came up, I think someone is either trying to frame you, or to trick me into making a false accusation against you at WP:SPI. I'm guessing that it may be the banned user PennySeven. In any case, would you mind having a look at the history and share your thoughts about this? Thanks, LK (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see that there is a problem. The only citation needed tags which I support are the seven (I think) which I added. The others are just turning the article into mush. At first, I thought that these people might just be imitating me and flagging things which they thought were mistaken. But that seems less likely now.
 * I have only ever used one other account besides this one, namely User:SocratesG (Socrates' Ghost). I tried it as an experiment to see if I could use the Socratic method to educate the troll User:Biedermann. It did not work as I had hoped, although he seems to have gone away. JRSpriggs (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input. I'm going to file a SPI for those accounts. PennySeven has a long history of socking, so I think we'll need to be on the look out for socks at Inflation and Deflation. LK (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Deflation
I recently read what I consider to be one of the best recent New Keynesian papers on the topic of deflation. Since you are interested in the topic of deflation, I thought you may be interested in browsing through it. It's available for download here as a pdf file. If nothing else, the introduction gives a good overview of the recent work done in this field. Regards, LK (talk) 10:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I tried to down-load the article, but access is restricted. So I did not get it. JRSpriggs (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I used Google and found that the paper is available for free from the New York Federal Reserve Bank. So now I have it. Thank you. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * My apologies. I get access to many journals automatically through the University network. It's hard to keep track. It good that you managed to get it through the Fed. LK (talk) 05:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

What's Up?
All I care about is that the concern that I expressed be addressed in some manner. So if you do not like the changes that I suggest in my edits of "The Friedmann Equations", please feel free to suggest modifications of my changes. In other words, please let us collaborate.

I have written a response to your last comment. There, I give a brief curriculum vitae. I shall soon place a more complete User Page here with a profile. Perhaps I should have done this earlier, because I shall continue to suggest editorial changes in all the articles dealing with Friedmann, FLRW, the Big Bang, Dark Energy and Dark Matter. It would behoove me to have a profile available to reviewers like you who may be curious about who I am and what business I may have suggesting these changes in the first place. They should also know something about me and what motivates me.

Thanks,

Gary Kent (AKA Gary Kentgen)

P.S.

I like my pseudonym because people have a strange inability to pronounce my surname from the spelling or spell it from the pronunciation. So, sometimes I say "I am Gary Clark KENT-gen, Son of Superman." If you wish to know more about me right away, see my website at http://www.lonetree-pictures.com/.

Kentgen1 (talk) 12:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Prime Number Theory
Hey!,

I see by your profile that you are a virtual Ph.D. in mathematics and that you are interested in number theory. Are you interested in primes? Since you express interest in cryptography, you may well be interested in Koch's Analytical Equation for the Prime Numbers. While there are other formulas for the primes, Koch's is unique. It does not rely on any transcendental funtions and is completely transparent. One can always tell exactly what it is doing.

Basically, It just expresses in mathematical notation precisely what a computer programmer would do in order to compute the primes. I am also interested in cryptography. I think Koch's Formula could facilitate the computation of the prime numbers without resort to so much computation. Then, the calculations could be done on a small computer up to and beyond that required to break public key codes. I think I might consider excercising some care in my investigation of this idea, because there are restrictions on the publication of public key encryption code breaking technology. Still, once the cat is out of the bag who may spill the beans into the hot water, the government cannot justify crying over spilt milk nor can it put the toothpaste back into the tube.

Gary Kent

Kentgen1 (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Newton's method
Hi, JR.

Please explain what was erroneous about my edits to the Newton's method page. If you think there was an error, why not correct it rather than revert all my edits? Thanks. Torokun (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Your two edits to Newton's method which I reverted merely replaced
 * ". Then by simple algebra we can derive"
 * by
 * ", or its slope, at yn = f(xn). We may then use this slope as a rough estimate of the function f and find its intersection with the x-axis. The line tangent to the curve at xn is given by y = f '(xn)x + f(xn). Setting y = 0 to find the new x-intercept, or xn+1, we see that ".
 * There was nothing of value in your change to preserve. The transition from the first of the two display display formulas bracketing your addition to the second was indeed merely simple algebra which I can easily do in my head. Your definition of yn was unnecessary and distracting. Your formula "y = f '(xn)x + f(xn)" is false. If used, it should be corrected to say "y = f '(xn) (x - xn) + f(xn)". JRSpriggs (talk) 08:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
I requested formal mediation regarding your reversion of my edits to the Friedmann equations. Please agree to mediation because I think we can come to an accommodation. For instance, if you would suggest alternate wording for my edits, instead of reverting them on a wholesale basis, I could agree to such a compromise. Or, perhaps you could accept some of my edits and reject others, but not reject all of them.

One way or another, I intend to get closure on this issue.

Kentgen1 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. Who are you proposing to be the mediator? To whom did you make your request and under what policy of Wikipedia (please provide a link to the policy article)?
 * 2. No one can have his way all the time as you seem to be expecting that you can. Many times I have had to accept that additions or changes I wanted to make in an article were not acceptable to others and have had to drop them. You will find that the changes you are trying to make, in this case, will not be accepted. This is evidenced by the fact that several different people reverted your changes before the single time that I reverted you. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I have added my opinion, that the ideal gas law is not assumed, to the mediation request. --Michael C. Price talk 22:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected
The Request for mediation concerning Friedmann equations, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list. For the Mediation Committee, AGK  23:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC) (This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Kazaori Eboshi
Found it and added it. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * To Anna: You are welcome to my suggestion. And I thank you for finding the image and information and adding it to the article. JRSpriggs (talk) 00:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to Collaborate
JR, I want to ask you if you would like to collaborate with me on an addition to The Friedmann Equations according to the notice given at the top of the article requesting extensions or expansions. Our addition would be under the section heading "Critique". We would critically analyze the FE and identify all its assumptions and approximations, including the fact that references to a "fluid" with unqualified use of variables like density and pressure imply the assumption of the ideal gas law. Use of such variables does imply something, after all. If not the ideal gas law, what? This, then, implies other hidden premises or unstated assumptions.

The Friedmann equations and the FLRW metric articles are unlike some other articles in Wikipedia. They should be treated with more flexibility because they are so important to, say, the premier article on the Big Bang. Collectively, these articles define our modern civilization's view of cosmic origins and evolution, our own story of cosmogony. We should wish to prove that we have come a long way from when we thought the earth was the back of a giant elephant treading the leaves and petals of an even larger lotus flower in an endless pond.

And, Wikipedia is used by journalists for quick background checks on the projects upon which they are working. It therefore has an impact far beyond the general readership. So, including a thoughtful critique would be a convenience for them and a plus for Wikipedia.

By the way, I thought that you would be notified of my request for formal mediation, so I thought that sending you a notice myself would be unnecessary. Also, your addition to the Friedmann equations wherein you treat mixtures within the substance and underlying matrix of the universe is ultimately derived from the Law of Partial Pressures, a corollary to the ideal gas law. Your development depends on the fact that, in a gas, the total pressure from all contributing components of the gas is the sum of the partial pressures of each.

Maybe we should not use the ideal gas law. Perhaps the Van der Waals equation would be better. Or the virial equation of state with five separate parameters. This would allow cosmologists to "prove" anything.

Kentgen1 (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * According to the ideal gas law, the equation of state for an ideal gas is
 * $$ p V = n R T \,$$
 * which implies that
 * $$ p \propto \rho T \,,$$
 * if all the substances have the same mass-energy per mole of substance.
 * Contrast this with the formula used for certain perfect fluids in Friedmann equations
 * $$ p = w \rho c^2 \,$$
 * which implies
 * $$ p \propto \rho \,$$
 * in all cases for a single such substance.
 * You should see that there are two differences: (1) we cannot assume that all the substances have the same mass-energy per mole; and (2) we cannot assume that the temperature, T, is constant over time (or even that it is the same for different substances). It is also important to notice that the proportions of the various substances in a mixture change with time. Thus the law for perfect fluids used in that section of the article is incompatible with the ideal gas law.
 * By the way, I have no interest in trying to collaborate with you on anything due to your sometimes hostile attitude and disorganized thinking. JRSpriggs (talk) 11:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Misconceptions relative to NP-complete
Thank you for the info. Androstachys (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Response to JRSpriggs's user page: More on hubris?
I enjoyed reading your user page. If you find it interesting enough to address there, I'd appreciate your thoughts on how fundamental a near-absolute property right is. For instance, it is my understanding that some cultures (e.g., native American nations) believed land to be owned by the the people (and the gods/spirits). I suspect that they would have considered it an act of hubris (to borrow one of your adjectives) if someone claimed exclusive rights to some piece of land, merely because some piece of paper so indicated &mdash; much as we consider ownership of people to be ethically inappropriate. I would appreciate your thoughts on how I am to discern which is the true act of hubris: the belief that land can be owned by individuals or the belief that land cannot be owned by individuals. Thanks &mdash; Quantling (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ownership of private property is not an arbitrary social convention as you seem to be saying. It is based on a fact of reality &mdash; two different entities cannot use the same physical object or place for conflicting purposes at the same time without interfering with each other. People need to be free to act to create the means of their survival. People need exclusive use of objects and places to be able to so act. If it is possible for two or more people to cooperate and share the property under conditions that will benefit all of them, then the owner is free to reach an agreement with the others to so share it. To avoid conflicts, property rights should go to the first one who uses the object or place, and those to whom he voluntarily sells, bequeaths, or gives it. JRSpriggs (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! But that sparks further questions for me. Despite a lack of non-exclusivity we do manage to communally own the air we breathe, the roads we drive on, and so on. My question is, what is the necessary standard to establish that some resource is better utilized as community property? For instance, if a single individual objects, must we revert to that resource being private property &mdash; e.g. having to post guards on the streets to ensure that only those who have "bought in" make use of them? In this admittedly extreme example, is it the one individual or the other six billion who are demonstrating hubris, and, more generally, what is the necessary standard to decide this sort of question? I am diving directly for the questions that interest me; I hope you will accept them in the spirit of my curiosity rather than interpreting them as a mean-spirited cross examination. Thanks in advance! &mdash; Quantling (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Communal ownership" is a contradiction in terms.
 * Air is not property unless it is contained and only as long as it is contained, e.g. in someone's lungs, in a diver's air tank, or in a balloon. When you release air, you are abandoning ownership of it and returning it to a state of nature.
 * Try telling the traffic cops that roads are communally owned when they give you a ticket for violating the rules set by the owner.
 * It is not up to me to set rules restricting the right of another person to acquire and use property, nor may anyone justly restrict my acquisition and use of my property. Law is not a matter of choice. Law is determined by nature, by the way that reality works. The most that I can do is try to recognize what it is, and hope that I am right. JRSpriggs (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you are saying that pretty much anything should be ownable if its exclusive use is more natural than its shared use, but I don't know what you mean by "natural" in this context. Is it synonymous with "practical"? Even with "practical," I am still having trouble figuring out how we discern whether exclusive use or shared use is more natural on a case by case basis. I can see a case being made that, for example, $$E=mc^2$$ is a law of nature, because we can perform experiments, but &hellip; for instance, how does nature indicate that having the rules of the road determined by, say, democracy is less natural than the alternative that you are envisioning? (And what is that alternative?) Thank you again for giving (wasting?) your time to entertain my questions! &mdash; Quantling (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * One needs to distinguish between "positive law" and "natural law". Positive law consists of the often arbitrary demands of the government authorities which they enforce by various punishments. Natural law (which is what I was talking about above) is what law should be, that is, it is the law determined by ethical considerations. More specifically:
 * "Alice has a right that Bob not do X." means "If Bob does or attempts to do X, Alice or her agent may ethically use force against Bob to compel him to cease and desist from doing X and to obtain compensation for her loses.". "Bob is free to do X." means "No one has a right that Bob not do X, or each person having such a right has consented to Bob doing X.", that is, "No one may ethically use force against Bob because he does or attempts to do X.".
 * As I indicated at User:JRSpriggs, a good action is one which tends to benefit the actor in the long run, i.e. preserve his life and that of his blood relatives.
 * The above is a definition of natural law and ethics rather than a characterization. So it is not as useful as one might wish. However, even this much runs against the mainstream view. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me explain it in two more ways:
 * (1) We want to solve the problem of maximizing the good, i.e. making the world economy produce the most useful outputs over time. Since this is an extremely complex problem, we can best solve it by subdividing it into smaller problems which are as isolated (self-contained) from each other as possible. Each subproblem is assigned to one person. The subproblem is to manage his own person and property. Thus no one should interfere in the person or property of another person without the consent of that other person. And any action (on the interface between subproblems) which affects multiple people should only be done by unanimous agreement of them.
 * (2) Casting it into religious terminology (which can be misleading sometimes): We live in the kingdom of God who makes the laws and enforces them. But some people are so arrogant (vain) that they try to put themselves in the place of God and create a government which tries to supplant God's laws with laws of their own devising and which they attempt to enforce. However, in so doing they are violating God's laws and will suffer the consequences. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I am all for having the law be what it should be (your term is "natural law") rather than having the law be arbitrary (your term is "positive law"), but as to figuring out your approach to discerning the two, I still have trouble. It appears that you equate "good" with "making the world economy produce the most useful outputs over time" and you propose that this is best achieved by subdivision: "The subproblem is to [have each person] manage his own person and property." While I agree that this is a noble goal and that this is an excellent way to work towards it, I do not see why the goal is so important as as to exclude all other noble goals; nor do I see why the proposed strategy should be pursued to the exclusion of other ways to reasonably achieve the same goal.

For instance, in economic utility theory, pretty much all people try to balance return and risk; people are willing to sacrifice a little profit in order to lower uncertainty. That is, it's not just the expected profit, but the variance matters too. Paralleling that, shouldn't pretty much all people be willing to sacrifice a little in the "total production of goods" category in order to help out the worst off among us? (Reducing the variance in the distribution of fortunes.) You mention God's laws. Helping out the less fortunate is one of them, yes? Quantling (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There are lots of different ways to explain this, some of which work better with some people than others, so I was trying out some of them on you. In the economic explanation, you should read it as including all kinds of good things, including charity if and when charity is appropriate. That is, there are no "noble goals" outside and competing with this because it is intended to already include them all. Whatever rational reasons people have for preferring low risk (or high risk) should also be included in the calculations they do for managing their person and property.
 * I should have mentioned that the property system provides accountability &mdash; if you do a good job, the amount of stuff you control increases; if you do a bad job, it decreases. This accountability cannot be reliably achieved in any other way.
 * No, helping the "less fortunate" per se is not good. In some cases, it may be profitable to invest in someone (make a loan, or go partners), but that is not always the case. JRSpriggs (talk) 09:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I can dig that; if "producing the most goods" is not meant to be taken in its most dry direct sense, but has room for other noble goals, then who can complain about that? But I think you are saying that the subdivision approach ("the property system") is the best strategy even in this expanded sense of the noble goal. What is your reasoning there?

For instance, I consider it a noble goal that my children not be killed by drunk drivers; and I am willing to put up with having the roads policed to work towards that goal. On the other hand, I fear that a property-based approach would be much less effective. Sure a drunk driver may find himself lynched by an angry mob; but I fear that such an approach too easily slides into "pay back" killings and all the other ugliness that already happens much too often; we call it gang warfare where I live. Towards the noble goals of both keeping my children alive and minimizing gang warfare, I am willing to give up some property rights. I am not saying the current system is perfect, but going to private roads seems like a step in the wrong direction. Many thanks for putting up with my unrelenting questions and for taking the time to address them thoughtfully. Quantling (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Socratic method
Since I do not seem to be making much progress at communicating with you in my usual manner, I would like to try something different &mdash; the Socratic method. Let me ask you questions about your beliefs. If any of my questions are unclear or loaded/biased (assuming something with which you do not agree), then please tell me and I will try to rephrase the question.
 * 1. Do you understand and accept the my plan to use the Socratic method?
 * 2. On what basis do you classify a goal as "noble" rather than one which can be handled by the property system?
 * 3. What leads you to think that protection against drunk drivers would be more effectively handled outside the property system?
 * 4. What do you see as the alternative(s) to the property system? Is it some variation of the current form of "democratic" government?

JRSpriggs (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The answers. Thank you &mdash; Quantling (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes.
 * 2) There are many noble goals. Keeping my children alive is one of them.  While the property system is good for solving many noble goals, I don't see how it directly applies to keeping my children alive in the drunken driver scenario.  For instance, it is my thinking that giving up a little in the property rights category with regards to policing the roads will be of net benefit to keeping my children alive.
 * 3) The current system of driver licenses, police and courts, while far from perfect, has a lot to say for it. Since we don't have the option of opting out of the licenses-police-court system, I would say that it is not a property rights system.  (Would you agree, or am I misunderstanding what you mean by property rights, problem subdivision, etc.?)  I think the current system would be better than a system of private roads with privately determined rules.  For instance, if an interloper used a private road and killed someone, what would be the redress, and is it obvious that it would work as well at keeping my children safe?
 * 4) Democracy, like the property system, is an excellent tool for achieving noble goals. Fortunately, these two excellent tools usually give the same answer.  My line of questioning is about when they don't give the same answer: e.g., the democratically selected approach of licenses-police-courts vs. a more anarchic system.  If you consider property rights more natural than democracy in all cases ... why?


 * Clarifications:
 * 3. Under the property system as I see it, most aspects of the current system of licenses-police-courts could be implemented by the owner of a private road, if he so chose. You would be free to consider whether the scheme chosen provides sufficient security before choosing whether to use his road. A contract with the owner of the road could provide for penalties for violating the rules of his road. Those who trespass (use the road without permission) put themselves at his mercy.
 * 4. The property system provides more accountability than democracy.
 * Questions:
 * 5. What, if anything, distinguishes noble goals from your other goals beyond degree of importance?
 * 6. Does democracy choose noble goals? Why?
 * 7. Is democracy effective/efficient in achieving its goals? How?
 * 8. What system do people use in every day life?
 * 9. What system do people naturally establish before government is imposed?
 * JRSpriggs (talk) 10:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again  I worry about the "put themselves at his mercy" part. In too many cities we already have a problem with cycles of retribution, as each agrieved party (gang) considers the other party's punitive justice to be excessive. I also worry about having to negotiate many contracts. Isn't that inefficient? Or if the road owners form a consortium to ease the contract negotiation, don't we have to worry about effective monopolies? If my house ends up land locked by roads owned by owners hostile to me, do I have any recourse? I agree that people have plenty of incentive to take care of their own stuff under a property system. What about externalities like pollution? Yes, I am using "noble" as a synonym for "important." I have trouble casting some important goals into the "maximize the production of goods" wording. And that trouble carries over to my inability to get a good understanding of how a property system will address those goals. Sometimes democracy does what I consider to be noble, and sometimes it does not. I see no magic bullet that will achieve all goals. Democracy and the property system are both examples that work a good amount of the time. Democracy is efficient at some things, but not at others. I think the democratic (public) version of licenses-police-courts is more efficient than the private version. Though I admit that it is ambiguous. (This is a big question I have of you. I see many situations as somewhat ambiguous, such as when is it best that a property system dominates other ideals.  Why is it "obvious" to you that the property system is always the best (assuming that you would agree with that statement).) In my marriage, we use consensus. Our marriage is enriched when we find solutions that make both of us happy. Small enough groups use consensus or similar for matters that affect the group as a whole, or they break apart. Groups that are too large for practical consensus use democracy or a representative democracy, or they break apart. When a group is very large (e.g., an entire country), I think that concerns for externalities can conflict with the goal of preserving the opt-out right. I see no easy way to resolve this conflict of externalities vs. opt out. The best I have come up with is that there should be rigorous debate so that we can explore all the best solutions, but that ultimately it has to come down to a vote.  Quantling (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Clarifications:
 * 3.The usual practice is to have a standard contract drafted by the service vendor with a few options from which the customer can choose. Before you buy a house, you should make sure that it includes an easement (right to enter or leave under some conditions). I think that the assumption that everyone would be hostile to you in a free society when that is not the case in the current unfree society is unreasonable.
 * 4. You can sue the polluter, if you can show that you are being damaged by the pollution.
 * 5. Do not get hung-up on exact wording. You should include any intangible benefits and costs which affect you in making your decisions on how to manage your property. To the extent that such intangibles might affect others, you might want to modify the terms of your relationships with them to internalize such effects.
 * 7. Looking at news and history shows me that there are positive feed-back loops in government systems which tend to destabilize them. And I see no theoretical reason why this should change. There should be no such loops in the property system, since it is based on voluntary choices and accountability.
 * Questions:
 * 10. The cycle of retribution by gangs exists under the current government. Why do you think that it would be worse rather than better under a property system? What causes the cycle of retribution?
 * 11. I see trends to less freedom and more debt and waste in the current government. Do you agree? Is this a problem specific to democracy?
 * 12. What do you think of the government of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela? If it is a dictatorship, then how did that happen in a democracy?
 * 13. Why do you think that the democratic (public) version of licenses-police-courts is more efficient than the private version?
 * 14. What is consensus? How do you work towards consensus? How do you know whether and when you reach it? What if you cannot achieve consensus?
 * 15. If things come down to a vote, what majority (1/2 plus 1, 3/5, 2/3, all, or what?) should required to make a decision?
 * JRSpriggs (talk) 05:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Our enumeration is getting long! Here goes:  That could be a lot of standard contracts for my cross-country trip; as it is, I already don't have time to read the updated terms, privacy statements, etc. that I receive with all my accounts.

If I have an easement, a year or two won't do; having it expire when I sell the house could be problematic as well, as it could make it difficult to persuade the next buyer that the easement is forthcoming. I think the easement would have to be permanent. But if it is to be permanent, in practice, how is that different from a (democratically enacted) public law that guarantees me an easement?

The vast majority of us are not surrounded by neighbors that we can't stand. But, I imagine, some of us are. For these people, privatizing the roads would make life difficult.</li> <li>Who would be the judge in the court in which I'd sue? Would the judge be selected democratically? Would the judge be relying on (democratically enacted) laws to make decisions, or would each case be tried de novo?</li> <li>I don't know how the property system helps me keep my children safe from the drunk drivers; I hope that if I can somehow frame child safety in terms of production of goods that will help me answer the question.</li> Yes, democracy is far from perfect, it being the worst form of governance, excepting all others that have been tried (Churchill). But we do see positive feedback loops in property systems too; e.g., monopolies and indentured servitude tend to self-perpetuate. Won't we need a democracy to create laws to keep us from falling into these traps?</li> I don't see that privatizing the roads will affect either way the situations that currently cause gang violence. But unless we have courts (and the laws they depend upon, and the democracy that enacts those laws) aren't we saying that retribution is to be meted out by the victim? This is what scares me.</li> <li>Yes, for instance, civil liberties have been taking a beating since 9/11. The (privatized) Wall Street implosion may win records for being even more wasteful than the government. The government wars, where we spend millions billions trillions are quite wasteful, because aggressive diplomacy would be cheaper and more effective. But I think interstate highways, unemployment insurance, food stamps, &hellip; are helping production of goods more than they hurt. So, to me, it's somewhat ambiguous whether government is more wasteful than its absence. How it is that you see this as obvious continues to lose me.</li> <li>Hugo Chávez is hated by many capitalists (perhaps including yourself) because he is less in favor of the property system than many of us. But as a leader he is better than many in the world. For example, he doesn't murder his own citizens nor those in other countries. (Thus there are many in the world who say Bush and Obama are worse!) His attempts at garnering more power have been through the democratic process, where he lost in trying to change the constitution.</li> <li>See #3 & #4.</li> <li>By "consensus" I mean nothing more than a unanimous vote. To work towards consensus requires eternal vigilance. For issues that are important enough, one continues to work towards consensus even if other mechanisms (e.g., votes) are undertaken in the interim due to short-term necessity. Consensus is impractical in large groups.</li> <li>Excellent question. The best answer I have is that democracy itself should decide that question. Robert's Rules of Order does a good job for small enough meetings. The US constitution does a good job of giving different thresholds for different decisions.</li> </ol> But are we losing sight of the big picture in our enumeration? To me it is obvious that no single method can solve all problems. To me it is obvious that the property system needs at least some adjustment as dictated by democracy (e.g. to handle monopolies, outlaw indentured servitude, establish norms for conflict resolution). To me it is obvious that once we allow that democracy can sometimes overrule the raw property system, we then have to face the issue of when democracy is permitted to do so and when it is not. IMHO, to resolve this last question we need eternal vigilance and constant good-faith dialog. Ideally, we would strive for consensus, but that is not always practical. Despite its flaws, the best solution I have found is that we should use democracy/voting to define the limits of democracy. Quantling (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the length of our messages is becoming unwieldy. So for now at least, I will limit myself to answering four of your questions and asking four of my own per exchange.
 * Answers:
 * 3. "how is [a permanent easement by contract] different from a (democratically enacted) public law that guarantees me an easement?"
 * A public law allows people who are not directly affected by the issue to prevent an agreement or to add terms to it not wanted by those who are properly parties to the agreement.
 * 4. "Who would be the judge in the court in which I'd sue?"
 * The parties to the case could agree on an arbitrator. Failing that, one possible approach would be to have each party make a list of lawyers whom he would accept as arbitrator. If the lists overlap, one would be chosen at random from that intersection. Otherwise, one would be chosen at random from the union of the lists.
 * 7. "monopolies and indentured servitude tend to self-perpetuate. Won't we need a democracy to create laws to keep us from falling into these traps?"
 * I do not accept your premise. Only government coercion can maintain monopolies (when harmful to the consumers) or slavery.
 * 10. "unless we have ... democracy ... aren't we saying that retribution is to be meted out by the victim?"
 * Yes, the victim or his agents.
 * Questions:
 * 16. Is it not YOUR responsibility to keep your children safe from drunk drivers by preventing them from traveling on roads which are inadequately policed by their owner's agents?
 * 17. Why are you afraid of justice meted out by the victims &mdash; you are not planning to commit crimes are you?
 * 18. Is it not the case that the waste of the recent financial crisis was caused by government mismanagement of the economy (especially the housing market) followed by government "bailouts" of firms which should have been allowed to fail?
 * 19. If "no single method can solve all problems", then how can one rely on using "democracy/voting to define the limits of democracy" which makes democracy the single method?
 * JRSpriggs (talk) 10:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we're getting closer to the heart of the matter. <ol> I worry that that won't work so well. Suppose some sellers sell a bunch of mortgage securities to a bunch of buyers, and the investment goes sour. The buyers accuse the sellers of fraud and the sellers accuse the buyers of failing to exercise due diligence. So, there is a law suit; they choose lists of potential judges. Because the amount in contention is huge, no one takes any chances; the lists are of biased individuals and are non-intersecting. (Or maybe I'm too jaded.) A coin is flipped to decide the judge and the verdict. Has anything been resolved satisfactorily? Is there an appeals process?</li> A thousand years ago, feudal lords managed to keep many slaves / indentured servants. Are we labeling them as "government" (certainly not democracy) or "monopolies" (certainly nothing we'd advocate) or something else entirely?</li> Absolutely, my children's safety is my responsibility. I take it very seriously. One way I try to achieve it is by supporting a system that I believe will keep them safer than the alternatives. That system is property rights tempered by democracy.</li> Whether I plan to commit crimes depends upon what you think a crime is. Abortion doctors get murdered, though reasonable people disagree as to whether abortion is a crime. If a punishment is deemed excessive by the punished, i.e if the punishment is deemed a crime in and of itself, aren't we in for a fairly ugly cycle of violence?</li> <li>The recent financial crisis was caused by fraud and/or a failure to exercise due diligence; IMHO, not the government's fault. I agree that the government bailout left a lot to be desired.</li> <li>It is my belief that the property system is a good idea, needing only a little tempering. It is my belief that democracy provides a good system for tempering. But what do we do if things still aren't right? I see three possibilities: <ol> <li>Advocate for change. Democracy is not immutable and laws can be changed. Eternal vigilance is required.</li> <li>Live with it. Even though something is not ideal, if it isn't that important, then we can let it slide. This is part of the price we pay for striving for a property system tempered by democracy. If the price is less than that of an untempered property system, which I believe to be the case, then we win.</li> <li>If something is important enough, and advocating for change is too slow, then we take the route of Harriet Tubman. Both the property system and the democracy of her time permitted slavery. She defied both systems.</li> </ol> IMHO, That democracy usually saves us from having to be Harriet Tubman is a key feature of having democracy as the tempering method for the property system. </li> </ol> All the best &mdash;Quantling (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * My failure to respond to some of your comments (especially in light of my limitation on number of answers and questions), such as regarding Hugo Chavez, should not be construed as indicating that I agree with them.
 * Answers:
 * 4a. "there is a law suit; ... the lists [of judges] are of biased individuals and are non-intersecting. ... Has anything been resolved satisfactorily?"
 * If a person acts in an unreasonable way (especially if he fails to follow customary practices in law suits), then his reputation will suffer and he will be subject to ostracism and people may decide to use force to resolve disputes with him rather than submitting to arbitration. This will not be to his advantage.
 * I expect that it would be to a person's advantage to make his list of judges as long as possible (while excluding those who might be biased against him or who would be considered disreputable) in order to maximize the probability that the chosen judge will be selected from his list rather than the other list. Thus the chance of overlap should be significant.
 * 4b. "Is there an appeals process?"
 * Essentially, an appeal is another law suit which a party files against the judge in the first suit. He would have to show that the judge in the first case engaged in misconduct (breach of the contract hiring him as a judge), not merely that he made a mistake.
 * 7. "Are we labeling [feudal lords holding slaves or serfs] as "government" ... or "monopolies" ... or something else entirely?"
 * I do not know enough about feudalism to identify precisely what its underlying flaw was. However, it is clear that it arose from the ruins of the Roman empire and dissolved away when it came into contact with capitalism.
 * 17. "if the punishment is deemed a crime ... aren't we in for a fairly ugly cycle of violence?"
 * Thus the supporters of the plaintiff and the supporters of the defendant have an incentive to submit their dispute to arbitration, if they are both reasonable enough for that to be workable. Those who are unreasonable may find themselves on the losing side because they provoke many others to oppose them.
 * Under the current system, people who might join together to fight gangsters are afraid to do so because the government might prosecute them for vigilantism. Thus government protects gangsterism.
 * Questions:
 * 20. If employees of the public school system choose (as they often do) to place their own job security and the power of their unions above both students' interest in good education and taxpayers' interest in protecting their property, then how do you prevent the democratic process from being corrupted by them?
 * 21. Is it not far more efficient to directly protect your children than to waste your time fighting with other people over how to get the government to protect them?
 * 22. The temptation to commit fraud and the temptation to be sloppy instead of exercising due diligence are permanent features of the human condition. Why would they cause a financial crisis specifically in 2008?
 * 23. Suppose as someone who is eternally vigilant, you find a problem in the democratic system with which you cannot live and which you cannot change within the system (as in the 1850s). By following the route of Harriet Tubman are you not engaging in anarchism and subversion, perhaps even insurrection and civil war?
 * JRSpriggs (talk) 11:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Going for conciseness:

4,17: Why don't gangs today submit to binding arbitration? Do you think it would be more likely in the absence of democracy?

If there are hundreds of billions on the line (housing security bubble, Enron, etc.) or even only a few millions, why would one care about ostracism or "the next time"? I doubt that former executives who win the "coin toss" would care very much whether they would be booed at a football game, if they dared to step out of their luxury boxes.

Who determines whether the car you drive on my neighbor's highway pollutes so much as to be a crime against me? Will there be a world-wide standard for pollution (selected by whom?) or will it all fall to the coin again? Will the highway owner now be in charge of policing the cars for proper pollution level? Will cars have to go through pollution inspection stations to enter roads, to demonstrate compliance or at least to display some sort of certificate of compliance? If the highway owners get together to form a common standard, aren't we risking monopolistic power, like government but not answerable to even a vote of the electorate.

20-22: Without addressing these individual issues nor whether I agree on these exact points, I will concede that democracy has flaws! We're debating whether a property system untempered by democracy would be worse. Without democracy, I see a significant rise in violence in these tit-for-tat scenarios. I see a significant fracturing of the populace into us vs. them (i.e., gangs), based upon which lynch mobs we've joined. I worry that too many of the folks who want power, who today settle for being politicians, will instead want to be generals.

23: Absolutely Harriet Tubman was engaging in anarchism and subversion and insurrection. It is my belief that the system you propose, without democracy as a back up, would require people to be Harriet Tubman far more often than is required when democracy is present. The result, I fear, is more bloodshed, which brings us full circle, for there will be a loss of productivity along with it.

24. Especially where democracy is strong, one seldom sees warfare between counties within a state or between states within a country. But warfare between countries is much more common. It could just be some sort of size issue, but maybe it is because the United Nations is too weak? If we could save trillions of dollars, and hundreds of thousands of deaths by strengthening the UN, might it be worth it?

All the best —Quantling (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Answers:
 * 4a. "Why don't gangs today submit to binding arbitration?"
 * Many gangsters are sociopaths who will use use violence impulsively under any system and care nothing about rules. For others, they cannot participate in a public process like arbitration because the government is hostile to their whole life style and would use the opportunity to persecute them. Even so, I suspect that there are times when gangs use mediators to resolve their differences. We just do not hear about it.
 * 4b. "If there are hundreds of billions on the line ..., why would one care about ostracism or "the next time"?"
 * Disputes would not reach such large amounts in the absence of class-action law-suits. Ostracism would mean that the ostracized firm would lose most of its customers, suppliers, and workers. Thus their profits would disappear and they would go out of business. They would not be allowed to go to football games at all, let alone have luxury boxes.
 * 4c. "If the highway owners get together to form a common standard, aren't we risking monopolistic power, like government but not answerable to even a vote of the electorate."
 * It would have to be profitable. That is a much stricter standard than satisfying the electorate.
 * 24. "But warfare between countries is much more common."
 * No, civil conflict is much more common than international war. Both the League of Nations and the United Nations have proved to be worse than useless. Giving them more resources would only mean that more resources would be wasted on corruption or worse. Evil doers have gained control of some international bodies, such as the United Nations Human Rights Council.
 * Questions:
 * 25. Who gave the "electorate" the right to rule us?
 * 26. How would you counter-balance the corrupting effect of public employee unions and career politicians?
 * 27. You have admitted "that democracy has flaws". Why should a flawed system which is not self-correcting be allowed to dominate the property system which would otherwise be self-correcting?
 * 28. Does not democracy simply mean that we preemptively surrender to whoever seems to be the strongest, regardless of whether he is right?
 * JRSpriggs (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Wrapping up
You have said that the property system (only) "Po" is natural and have implied that its rules are a call of duty and that submission to the system is victory. To the extent that it yields different results, you have said that the property system, tempered by democracy "Pd" is arbitrary, have said that its rules are an imposition (or theft), and you consider submission to the system to be surrender. When I ask you how you have made these valuations, you say it is that Po maximizes the production of goods. When I say that there are other ideals worth striving for besides the maximization of production, you say that the production phrasing is meant to incorporate all other important goals. You say that Po is better even in this expanded version of the goal.

So, correct me if I am wrong, but your justification for why Po deserves the positive-value adjectives and Pd deserves the negative-value adjectives boils down to your argument that Po is more practical and effective at achieving life's important goals than Pd is. We are discussing which is more practical, rather than which is more dictated by nature or more divine, etc., right? Personally, I think practicality is the standard by which we should choose Po or Pd; to me other approaches to valuation come across as inappropriately "faith-based", and I don't see that as useful. My understanding of history is that it shows that Pd nations (i.e., capitalistic democracies) produce more goods than any other system. Can you name a Po nation that has high productivity?

The funny thing is that I agree with your high valuations of many aspects of the Po system. While I will join you in democratically pushing our Pd system towards implementing these ideas, I cannot support the discarding of democracy itself. Even though we appear to agree on many important ideas, I believe it is more practical to have the democratic majority be my dictator than to have your present personal perception of practicality be my dictator.

Respectfully &mdash;Quantling (talk) 18:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * My last words:
 * "We are discussing which is more practical, rather than which is more dictated by nature or more divine, etc., right?"
 * I think that it is all the same thing. Ethics, practicality, conformity to natural law, and the "will of God" are all the same thing; just the words are different. (Quantling (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC) says: very insightful!)
 * "Can you name a Po nation that has high productivity?"
 * There is not and has never been a nation which is governed solely by the property system. Although some people have pointed to certain periods in the history of Iceland or Ireland as coming close to anarchocapitalism.
 * "I believe it is more practical to have the democratic majority be my dictator than to have your present personal perception of practicality be my dictator."
 * You do not get it. I am not saying that I am always right. On the contrary, it is quite likely that some parts of the society that I envision are mistaken. You should not follow what I say merely because I say it.
 * Rather, I am asking you to try to become aware of what works in reality &mdash; what produces good karma. Then let that be your guide rather than feeling that you must follow any of the rules laid down by fallible humans.
 * While the left likes to talk about compassion for other people, they ignore the fact that the most compassionate thing to do is to let people be free. Freedom is the absence of force. Force is destructive and cruel.
 * JRSpriggs (talk) 04:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It has been a pleasure discussing this with you. Many thanks for all your time and effort. Quantling (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Theorem
I was willing to live with the content of formal theorem relegated to the very bottom of the article below "lore" and other junk. The group has had a year to consider its own ways to integrate the content in a merge. So I think the others should drop the rigid approach and include it as it was in your last edit to the article. Perhaps you could act in the capacity of voice of reason. My presence only brings into sharp relief the collective attitude. Be well, Greg Bard (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Symmetry of stress-energy tensor
Hi. I noticed that you removed the "dubious" tag placed next to the assertion that the stress-energy tensor is necessarily symmetric and kindly added a citation. I agree that in general relativity, which is what MTW are discussing, the stress-energy tensor is indeed symmetric. The issue, however, is whether it is necessarily symmetric irrespective of the underlying theory. The "dubious" tag was placed there because the assertion is in direct conflict with the spin tensor article: "the stress-energy tensor isn't symmetric." The idea is that when the torsion tensor is nonzero, then the stress-energy tensor may not be perfectly symmetric. Zero torsion is an axiom of general relativity that may be relaxed. See Einstein–Cartan theory for an example of a theory where this distinction is important. Teply (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The whole idea of torsion is pure speculation, fringe science, since there is no empirical support for it. In addition to the argument given by MTW, symmetry is required for conservation of angular momentum.
 * Furthermore, if stress-energy is defined as (a constant times) the derivative of the matter Lagrangian with respect to the symmetric metric tensor, then it must be symmetric. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, if you want me to actually read something about Einstein–Cartan theory, then it should be written in the classical tensor notation of physicists using coordinate systems and tensor indices. I do not care to waste my time trying to read stuff written using "coordinate-free" notations or differential forms or frame-fields as these merely obscure what is really going on. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand torsion so well myself, and I, too, am a fan of coordinates and tensor indices. And yes, the Einstein-Cartan theory article is in bad shape.  I merely mentioned it in case you were one of the math-happy folk who like torsion.  At any rate, I wouldn't call it "fringe science."  When I just did a quick Google search for "general relativity torsion," one of the first hits is a Rev. Mod. Phys. article General relativity with spin and torsion: Foundations and prospects with 792 citations.  I don't know much about this subject, but it strikes me as no wackier of addition to general relativity than, say, the cosmological constant.


 * Try not thinking of it in terms of torsion. Instead, try thinking about it in terms of spin.  The stress-energy tensor article has $$0 = (x^{\alpha} T^{\mu \nu} - x^{\mu} T^{\alpha \nu})_{,\nu}$$ for angular momentum conservation.  This corresponds to the familiar nonrelativistic definition for angular momentum, $$\mathbf{L} = \mathbf{r} \times \mathbf{p}$$.  The trouble here is that this definition includes only orbital angular momentum.  The metric tensor won't describe a spin 1/2 particle for you, so the distinction between orbital and total angular momentum doesn't come up very often.  Ultimately, however, we are most interested in demonstrating conservation of total, not orbital, angular momentum.  If you want to include spin in GR, I think you normally have to dispose of your metric tensor and use the tetrad formalism instead.  You perturb the action/Lagrangian with respect to the tetrads instead of the metric.


 * By the way, I don't know much of anything about it, but the theory of teleparallelism seems to be a gravitational theory based entirely on torsion. Teply (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, to include spin in GR - which is unavoidable really - you have to go to with tetrads. Certainly not fringe; tetrads make testable predictions. --Michael C. Price talk 22:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The spin of a macroscopic object is covered by the same equation as orbital angular momentum, provided that one can break it down into classical particles. We need to add a new subsection in Stress-energy tensor on the stress-energy of a spinor field considered as a non-quantum field. Quantum mechanical spin is a quantum mechanical phenomenon which may have to wait on the advent of a quantum gravity theory.
 * To Michael C. Price: To be mainstream science, it is not enough to be test-able, it must be test-ed successfully. Do you have any reference for experimental results supporting tetrads? JRSpriggs (talk) 14:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Tetrads are more computationally powerful than metric tensors in the following sense: 1) any prediction that can be made using the metric tensor alone can also be made using tetrads, and 2) tetrads can make a variety of predictions that metric tensors alone cannot make.  You might want to read through Robert Wald's General Relativity for a rather unimpeachable, mainstream reference.  He derives all of the elements of the Ricci tensor for the Schwarzschild metric by manipulating tetrads instead of the metric tensor.  He also works with spin later in the book.


 * I like to compare the conceptual transition from metric tensor to tetrads with the conceptual transition from the Klein–Gordon equation to the Dirac equation. Dirac derived the Dirac equation by taking, roughly, the "square root" of the Klein-Gordon equation.  This gave him effectively four equations (one for each component of the spinor) that could support spin-1/2.  Similarly, you can interpret each of the tetrads as a kind of "square root" of the metric.  Note that the Dirac equation in curved spacetime uses tetrads whereas the Klein–Gordon equation does not require them.  Teply (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The power of a theory is not evidence for its truth. If tetrads do not really exist, then including them in our theory will just be misleading (give false or self-contradictory results). For analogy, having an absolute state of rest or luminiferous aether would give our theory more power, but would contradict the empirical evidence which led to the special theory of relativity. Tetrads are one possible way to give meaning to spinors, but there may be other ways. For example, it is conceivable that two or more spinors (types of elementary particles) could combine together to give an object (tensor or tensors) which has meaning in the presence of gravity, while the spinors separately only have meaning when gravity is negligible. In other words, gravity might break the symmetry which keeps the spinors distinct from each other. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I can only repeat what I said: to include spin in GR you have to go to with tetrads, even before you get to quantum gravity. When I was taught GR in the early '80s tetrads were taught as part of the course. The analogy Teply makes with the Dirac equation is apposite. --Michael C. Price talk 21:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
For pointing out the spelling error. I cut and pasted it without noticing.Phmoreno (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply
I have posted a reply to your reversion concerning my proposed edit of the Equation of State (cosmology) article on this article's Discussion Page.

Kentgen1 (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Frege
Thanks for your comment at talk:Gottlob Frege. Would you support restoring the comment by Frege scholar Michael Dummett? Tkuvho (talk) 05:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Growth deflation definition
Where are you getting your definition of growth deflation from?

Increasing supply of goods: This by itself is not a cause of deflation. The supply & demand relationship would quickly correct this, as less would be supplied at lower prices. However, a breakthrough in production and distribution costs is permanent.

Goods, not services: In reading what actually happened (Wells 1890, Bell 1940 and others) growth deflation happened because of technological improvements that affected the price of goods, not services. Competitive pressures did drive margins to near zero during past depressions, but that was not the primary cause of the deflation because it would have required negative margins to have the kind of deflation that actually occurred. It was clearly the result of increased productivity that caused the deflation.

If you have any sources to counter this claim I'd like to read them.Phmoreno (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding growth deflation: By "increase in the supply" in "an increase in the supply of goods (including real estate as well as chattel) and services resulting in competitive price cuts", I meant an enduring increase, that is, a shift in the supply curve. I would be open to using your terminology, if we make it clear that the cost reduction is real rather than just nominal. So we could say "an enduring decrease in the real cost of goods and services resulting in competitive price cuts". OK? JRSpriggs (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Essentially, the way I see this list of causes has to do with the equation M*V=P*T (money times velocity equals price-level times transactions). Deflation means P is going down. This may be associated with any of three causes: T increasing (growth deflation, which is what we are arguing about); V decreasing (cash hoarding); or M decreasing (bank credit deflation). JRSpriggs (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Using the term "real costs" is confusing because that is a circular definition. Essentially that is defining deflation in terms of "deflation adjusted cost".  We are talking about declining production cost in excess of the overall deflation.  Now it just so happened that margins did decrease for many goods during the deflationary periods, at least during the actual depressions (hence the term).  I have not seen a study regarding how long margins remained depressed and how widespread the problem was during the six decade deflation. Also, the deflation was not continuous, though there were almost no periods of inflation.Phmoreno (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No. Since we are talking about the T part of the equation (which part does not have to do with money), nominal (monetary) costs should not be part of the definition. The real cost of producing a good is not circular. It is the opportunity cost, i.e. the use-value of the consumption which people had to forgo when the production process began in order to have the means to be able to produce the good. This is not the same as the use-value of the good itself which occurs at a later time. Another way to look at this is to say that we are talking about the efficiency (think of the gain of an amplifier) of the production process, i.e. the real rate of return on (non-financial non-governmental) investments. JRSpriggs (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Milton Friedman correctly stated that "inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon." So is deflation. OhioWanderer (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Without money there are no deflation and no inflation.OhioWanderer (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not only a matter of money. If there were no goods or services, no transactions, then there would also be no inflation or deflation. Prices are a result of balancing goods and services against money. So one of the causes of deflation is an increase in goods and services while holding money fixed. That is what growth deflation is. JRSpriggs (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

With respect, there is some misunderstanding here: Firstly, it is only a matter of money: Friedman got a Nobel Prize for that. "If there were no goods or services, no transactions, then there would also be no inflation or deflation" is not a valid argument: In valid response I could state: if there were no people there would be no inflation and deflation or if there were no universe there would be no inflation and deflation. Barter economies operate without money. Inflation and deflation are impossible in such economies. Prices are a not a result of balancing goods and services against money. Prices are the exchange rate between items whether goods or services in terms of money which is a medium of exchange of equal real value at the moment of exchange, a store of increasing or decreasing real value over time and unit of account of increasing or decreasing real value over time. Prices are a result of balancing goods and services against real value and expressing that relationship in terms of money. Deflation is simply going backwards along the inflation curve. There would be nothing wrong with deflation when the Historical Cost Accounting model, i.e. the stable measuring unit assumption (which assumes that the prices (real values) of constant real value non-monetary items never maintained, eg. equity (capital, retained earnings, capital reserves, etc), fixed salaries, fixed wages, fixed rentals, etc have always in the past, currently are and will always in the future be 100% stable forever and a day) are rejected and with it the HCA model, and financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power as authorized in IFRS in the Framework, Par 104 (a) twenty one years ago is implemented and the nominal prices of ALL constant real value non-nometary items are decreased in line with deflation: see Bernanke, et al, "there are no real price increases during pure hyperinflation" (and he is right.) Likewise: there are no real price decreases during pure deflation with no stable measuring unit assumption (HCA) and instead financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power. Variable real value non-monetary items´ prices are already decreased in the market taking deflation into account in a deflationary economy like Japan´s. This would result in economic stability: going backwards along the inflation curve. Consumers would not hold back consumption waiting for items to get cheaper because they would know that their salaries would decrease in lock-step with prices and deflation: result: economic stability: an economy operating in real values only. Equity would decrease in lock-step too: all constant items: i.e. financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power during deflation as authorized in IFRS twenty one years ago.OhioWanderer (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but what you are saying is nonsense. I am not interested in continuing this conversation with you. Please do not post any more messages on my talk page. JRSpriggs (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ultimate fate of the universe
Have u read the Scientific American article before u undid on hoax?Efficiency1101e (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The two references which you added to Ultimate fate of the universe to support your contribution are wild speculation having no scientific foundation. Popularizations where a journalist says that someone somewhere has claimed that the world could end in some bizarre new way do not count as reliable sources.
 * And just look at what you added: (1) "Dark Energy reverses itself..." How? Why should a physical force which acts one way suddenly start acting another way? It cannot. (2) "Somehow ordinary matter whips itself up into a frenzy..." How? Again, there is no theoretical basis for such a thing and no empirical support for it either.
 * Both of these are essentially saying that the world can act arbitrarily, when all of science shows us that the world does not act arbitrarily. JRSpriggs (talk) 13:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Korean War is over
I see that you have reverted the Bombardment of Yeonpyong from being part of Division of Korea to part of the Korean War. We have been discussing this issue on the talk page, but no-one has presented any evidence to show that the Korean War belligerents regard the conflict as ongoing. The North Koreans say the war is over. The US State Department says the war is over. The South Koreans have not said the war is continuing. If you have some new references, other than the oft-repeated soundbite that "the war isn't over because there was no peace treaty", please provide them on the talk page. Don't you think it is more appropriate that the page is part of the Division of Korea which covers all aspects of North-South enmity and conflict since the partition in 1945, rather than torturing history by denying that the Korean War ended in July 1953 and claiming that it has in fact continued for the last 60 years? regards Mztourist (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No. I do not want to repeat what has already been discussed at great length on that talk page. JRSpriggs (talk) 09:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well unless you or others have more to add to that discussion, I assume you will agree that the Bombardment of Yeonpyeong is part of the Division of Korea and not the Korean War. regards Mztourist (talk) 02:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Composite Number Factoring Theorem
I see you were involved in the discussion on this page's talk page about it's proposed deletion. It didn't seem to be filed correctly; so I've posted a proper AfD. The article's AfD page can be found here. Thanks. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  17:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know about it. JRSpriggs (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Monetary policy
About your recent edit to the Monetary policy article, I just want to explain the mainstream economics viewpoint a bit. It's not that economists think that deflation is always bad. The problem with deflation is that it causes problems during recessions and the aftermaths of financial crisis. The problems deflation causes are i) it prevents the normal functioning of monetary policy, as it is impossible to target a rate of interest lower than 0% (liquidity trap), ii) it increases the real value of debt, thus increasing bankruptcies and dampening future investment, delaying economic recovery, and iii) it causes fixed prices to rise in real terms, again delaying the economic recovery. I've made an edit along these lines to the 'gold standard' section of the Monetary policy article, and also cleaned up a bit. I'll be happy to continue our previous discussion of the issue of deflation further if you wish. (I realise I was sometimes brusque in our discussions before, for which I again apologise.) I'm on break between semesters now, and have a bit of free time on my hands. LK (talk) 04:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think your statement of the facts is mostly correct as far as it goes. But I think that you are not considering all of the relevant facts. Thus I reach the opposite conclusion &mdash; sustainable deflation is good at all times, even more so during a recession.
 * (i) "Normal functioning of monetary policy" is command-and-control, not the free market. Thus it is not something to be desired. Instead of trying to steer the economy, a central bank should focus on maximizing the value of its reserves divided by the monetary base. See User:JRSpriggs/Optimal monetary policy.
 * (ii) I agree that most debt is a problem. But to avoid the creation of debt in the future, we must avoid enabling those who enter into debt unwisely, i.e. avoid creating a moral hazard. Thus debtors must be allowed to suffer the adverse consequences of their foolish choices. Rescuing them by causing inflation just perpetuates the problem while harming the economy in general.
 * (iii) Actually the deflation which would naturally occur during a recession (if allowed to do so) is just the appropriate readjustment downward of those prices which were unduly raised during the boom. Thus it brings the recession to an end sooner.
 * Finally, if deflation (rather than inflation) had been the policy during the preceding period (the boom), then the boom and consequent recession would not have occurred. Instead (slower) normal but healthy and sustainable growth would have occurred throughout. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There are several good reasons why a low inflation rate is preferable to a low deflation rate, and I think I can even convince you given enough time. Unfortunately, I mis-spoke earlier about saying that I had some free time. I actually don't. Things have come up. I'll have to delay replying until after the new year. regards LK (talk) 09:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, now that the 2010 is almost over, I have to concede that my prediction that the GDP would drop below that of 2009 was wrong. JRSpriggs (talk) 12:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the long delay in getting back to you, but there have been several projects with short deadlines due at the university. I'm only going to be able to leave a quick note, as I'm lecturing 5 (five!) classes this semester. I'm only going to compare a low inflation to a low deflation scenario, as we probably agree that high inflation is bad (high deflation too, but that situation is very unlikely if not impossible). Here are the normal textbook reasons why a central bank should target a low rather than zero inflation rate: So, given the above, central banks usually target a low positive inflation rate (usually between 2% to 4% depending on the central bank). LK (talk) 05:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Labor markets (and some other markets) are very price sticky downwards (i.e. you can easily give people a raise, but you can't cut their pay. If you do, be prepared for labor strikes). A positive inflation rate allows real wages to slowly decline without actually cutting nominal wages. This allows greater efficiency in labor markets, as it allows the real wage to adjust both upwards and downwards.
 * 2) If you accept the mainstream position that inadequate demand causes recessions, Monetary Policy is much more effective with positive inflation rates. Since the nominal interest rate is bounded at zero, and real interest rate = nominal rate - inflation, positive inflation allows the central bank to target a negative real interest rate. Conversely, with deflation of X%, the minimum real interest rate that can be targeted would be +X%. (Liquidity trap)
 * 3) During chronic deflation, the minimum real interest rate in the economy would be the deflation rate. This may be above the equilibrium real interest rate, leading to inefficiencies, including lower investment in the economy.
 * 4) The inflation tax brings in revenue for the government. Given a level of government spending, and that this government spending must be funded, the taxes used to fund it should be cheap to administer, and should introduce the least amount of economic distortions. The inflation tax calculated under optimum tax theory is usually a small positive inflation rate.
 * 5) Under deflation, cash would pay a real interest rate equal to the deflation rate (e.g. deflation of 2% means that cash pays a real interest rate of 2%). This will encourage people to hold cash as an investment asset, rather than merely as a medium of exchange. There would also be little incentive to deposit cash into banks, as banks would likely not pay interest, but would instead levy safe-keeping charges. Cash holdings would skyrocket. This would i) cause the money multiplier to become unstable, so the central bank would lose control of monetary policy, ii) reduce the ability of the banking system to function as financial intermediaries (moving funds from savers to borrowers).


 * I hope that they are giving you something extra for teaching so many classes.
 * I agree that high deflation (e.g. 10%/year) is unsustainable, and that trying to achieve it would be harmful.


 * 1) I saw that Keynes made the sticky downward wages argument in his General Theory. It basically assumes that workers are stupid (fixated on the nominal rather than the real), which they are not. The conditions which contribute to the illusion of stickiness are: (a) if there is a permanent change in monetary policy, it takes time for people to become aware of that fact and develop confidence that it will continue that way; and (b) our laws (especially the Wagner act) give unions bosses and the contracts they insist upon excessive power.
 * 2) The mainstream position that inadequate demand causes recessions is inconsistent with Say's law. Demand cannot be insufficient in general as people always have unsatisfied desires for economic goods and services. If there is a glut (surplus) of some particular thing, it is either because the producers made a mistake about what consumers would demand or because some co-factor (needed to go with it) was unexpectedly reduced (e.g. destroyed in a fire or suddenly seized by the government) or due to intervention (price controls, subsidies, regulations, new export tariffs, etc.). Shocks like these or inhibitory government policies cause recessions. Having more money in circulation will not fix these conditions. Regarding the "liquidity trap", the wealth effect can and will overcome high real interest rates eventually. Also as I said in my paper, "When there is too little money, then there will be surplus goods and services, then prices will fall, then reserve assets will fall below the monetary base, then more reserve assets will be purchased, then the money supply will increase until the problem is solved.".
 * 3) If the Fed invested in equities and commodity futures as it should instead of Treasury securities, then insufficient investment would not be an issue.
 * 4) I grant that the "inflation tax" may be less harmful than other kinds of taxes. However, government should not be taxing people at all. It should finance itself with voluntary user fees related to the cost of the services it provides in exchange for them.
 * 5) Yes, so why is that a problem?
 * Thank you for your explication of the mainstream view. JRSpriggs (talk) 10:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There is some disagreement among economists about the efficacy and value of active monetary policy. But even excepting the Monetary policy issues, surely you must see that given the 'zero lower bound' for nominal interest rates, any significant deflation would limit the real interest rate to a rate higher than the deflation rate. Thus a 5% deflation rate limits real interest rates to >5%. This is exactly like a government mandated price floor. Any limit on prices in a competitive market leads to inefficiencies and lower quantity in that market than there should be (in this case, bank savings and investment).
 * Also, one may argue that governments shouldn't exist, and shouldn't tax anyone, but given that they exist, isn't it a good idea for their policies to be as benign (or least harmful) as possible? Given that the government will tax and raise revenue, optimum tax theory finds the optimum tax rates for various taxes, and for inflation tax, it usually is a non-zero number.
 * Lastly, on a personal note, why do you even care about this? What is so great about deflation?
 * LK (talk) 09:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If people are free to put their savings into any currency or other investment vehicle, then their choice to put it into dollars would not be "exactly like a government mandated price floor". A price floor is compulsory, requiring people to act irrationally. A free choice to invest in dollars is not compulsory, and may well be the most rational choice for people with limited knowledge of the investment options.
 * I see no value in advocating a policy which is the lesser of two evils, if there is a good alternative available. So I am not going to advocate an inflation tax when the proper functions of government could be financed by non-coercive means.
 * I care about the economy of the society I live in for the same reason that most people do &mdash; it affects my living conditions and the living conditions of people I care about. Sustainable deflation is good because: it increases the benefits that people receive in exchange for their productive work; consequently it encourages productive work; it makes the economy grow faster; it minimizes the boom-bust cycle; and it strengthens the dollar relative to other currencies and thus America relative to other nations. JRSpriggs (talk) 11:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Wording and sourcing
Hi JR, I noticed this edit and I fully agree. However, the source was primarily intended to support the sentence about the potential. It now supports two sentences, which under normal circumstances is of course no problem, and it's no big deal, but do you see perhaps a way to have proper wording in one sentence for both potential and Minkowski? Tricky :-) - DVdm (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It seemed to me to be a run-on sentence, especially after I added a phrase to it, so I split it. If you want to move the reference to the first part or recombine them together, that is OK.
 * However, I am now thinking that even my new version does not go far enough in restricting the applicability of Special relativity. Specifically, gravitational time dilation is not predicted by either Newton's theory of gravity or SR. What we need to say is something like this: if either $${g T \over c}$$ or $${g D \over c^2}$$ (where g is the maximum absolute value of the Newtonian gravitational acceleration within the region of interest, D is the diameter of the region of interest, and T is the duration of the region of interest) is non-negligible then SR is not applicable.
 * The reference given talks about linearized gravity, saying that $$\vert h_{0 0} \vert \ll c^2 $$ is needed. But it does not say (as far as I can see) that this is sufficient to make the linearized GR the same as Newton's gravity plus SR. JRSpriggs (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm... well, focussing on the source and on what is actually said in the first two sentences, and noting that we're not really talking specifically about time here in the section, I have replaced it with "Special relativity in its Minkowski spacetime is accurate only when the absolute value of the gravitational potential is much less than c2 in the region of interest.". I guess this adequately reflects the source, and it does not go in too much detail. It's also one properly worded and sourced sentence now. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

User page
Hello. I happened upon your user page and thought Wikipedia likely wasn't the right place for much of that material. I'd like to ask you to review WP:UPNOT and to please consider removing material that is not related to editing of Wikipedia. Ucbear (talk) 07:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Kinetic and total energy in General Relativity
Hi. I was wondering why you removed the items I had put on this page concerning the observations that would be made my stationary observers in curved space time with respect to kinetic energy. I believe this is a value equation and provides insight and intuition for new learners.

I was also curious as to why you inserted a momentum formula with the 4-velocity contracted with the metric. This is just a change of basis, and is not needed. Just p=mu is fine. Also, your equation for total energy did not have a metric for the inner product, only a sum over indicies. This is ambiguous, since the inner product depends on the metric. I have rewritten what I had and changed you contributions to be more understandable.

I hope you agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfy4 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing out the diagonal aspect for my expression. I'm a little confused though, I did not have that gtt=gtt, I had that they were inverses of each other.  Is gtt not the inverse of gtt?  Second, are you saying pb and pa are not both covariant?  In my case momentum was a covariant vector, following the well know chant "co is low".  Are you saying gabua does not equal ub?  Finally, I am also unfamiliar with writing gamma and way you have in the formula for the stationary observer, can you explain why you wrote it the way you did?  Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfy4 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Let us keep this discussion on the appropriate talk page, Talk:Kinetic energy. JRSpriggs (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: The remark you left on my talk page.
I understand what you wrote on my talk page is definitely true, but the complication with the question is that the common ratio is not constant. You would have to prove that $$tan^2c_j<1 $$ for all $$c_j$$ given an $$x_0$$ sufficiently close to π and that's the difficult part. Widener (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Tangent goes from &minus;1 to +1 monotonically as its argument goes from 3&pi;/4 to 5&pi;/4. So if x0 lies in the interior of that interval, then &minus;|x0|<cj<|x0| for all j. Thus |tancj|<|tanx0|<1. If we set r=|tanx0|2<1, then we get |xj|<rj|x0| which goes to zero by the theorem I mentioned. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

WP Physics in the Signpost
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Physics for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Straw poll regarding lists of mathematics articles
Greetings! In light of your participation in this discussion, you may be interested in participating in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Straw poll regarding lists of mathematics articles. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not use those lists so I would rather stay out of it. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thanks for letting me know. Cheers! bd2412  T 03:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

About \tfrac
Why should \tfrac be used in a displayed formula?--Netheril96 (talk) 01:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It just looks better to me. The full size one-half overwhelms the rest of the formula, making it hard to read. The tiny one-half is easy on the eyes.
 * Is there some policy or technical reason why we should not use it? Or is that your personal preference? JRSpriggs (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Displayed formula, by definition, is in displaystyle, not textstyle. \textstyle is used only for the formula to conform to the size of surrounding text. I don't have some policy to back me up, but neither do you.--Netheril96 (talk) 08:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Purpose
Hi, may i ask what the purpose of your "Muhammad's war against Mankind" section is on your user page? Are you planning on writing an article/blog or is it just a personal diary? Pass a Method  talk  09:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you want to know? JRSpriggs (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: The remark you left on my talk page.
Thx for your reply. I was just interested to see how a mathematical concept was being used in a political context. I can understand how it may not fit the notoriety rules (excuse my deliberate malapropism for ironic effect), which is a shame, but no worries. I saw that it was rescued and put it into ProofWiki, which is more flexible on such matters than Wikipedia. Reckoned it was worth mentioning for those who see a desire for it to continue. Was completely unprepared for those who believed that it was necessary to remove it from the English-speaking world's knowledge-base entirely. When I read what I did, I was prepared to put PoPo Le Chien into hospital, but I moderated my language.

I also understand that Wikipedia has a problem with vandalism. ProofWiki doesn't, from what I understand. The first incidence of vandalism gets you (and your IP address) blocked. Finito, kabutnik, terminatio expelliamus. Your account has turned up its toes, it is pushing up the daisies, etc. etc. Eternally, and for ever more. To my knowledge there have been a handful of vandals, and occasionally someone tries to spam. But they all get banned. So: no problem. --Matt Westwood 18:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I am glad that someone is taking a strong stand against vandalism. Could I please have a link to ProofWiki? JRSpriggs (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * GIYF. but ProofWiki has arrived. Your input, should you care to join in, would be appreciated - but I understand your commitment to Wikipedia may take precedence. --Matt Westwood 20:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

N is a proper subset of R
Hi JRSpriggs,

thanks for your brilliant edits on the intro of Cardinality of the continuum. You may have noticed that I was not (yet) able to convince CRGreathouse about simplifying the lead by removing the sentence about lack of bijection between R and N.

If we keep that sentence, the sentence becomes inaccurate: lack of bijection only proves that |R| is not equal to |R|. Mentioning, in addition, proper containment of N in R is the simplest possible way to show that |R|>|N|.

What do you think? Would you support my attempt to simplify, or at least make more accurate, the second paragraph of the lead?

Paolo.dL (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Quantitative easing discussion
There is a discussion going on at Talk:Quantitative easing on a topic you have discussed before. You are invited to participate. Lagrange613 (talk) 05:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Greek banks issuing euros
Your meaning is not clear. Is that a typo? Only the greek central bank can issue new Euros. The greek banks issue existing euros or claims to existing euros.

Yes all euros are not the same. But here in Finland we have mainly german or Finnish Euros. Then again in a world of electronic currency it might be that all the savers will be one day paid out in greek paper euros that nobody will want. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 09:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd


 * You have fractional-reserve banking in Europe, do you not? Thus some checking account money created by Greek banks is backed by notes from Greek businesses rather than euros issued by ECB, is that not correct? And some euro coins have Greek images on one side which means they were minted in Greece, is that not true? JRSpriggs (talk) 00:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hi, your input would be welcome at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cardinality_of_the_continuum#Moving_the_.22intuitive_argument.22_section That debated section should be moved at least, but I am leaning towards removal. Rschwieb (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)