Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 August 15

= August 15 =

Economics
Does the recent problems with people borrowing money they can't afford to pay back mean that those with savings will benefit? Cyta 07:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Savings, in general, are tied to the Federal interest rate. Raising and lowering that rate can have some relation to the number of defaults on loans, but it can also be affected by many other things.  In general, it is raised and lowered to maintain a rather stable economy.  Now, if your savings is actually stock investments (or similar), loan defaults will only affect them if you are investing in a company that is affected by loan defaults.  If you invest in Disney, it is difficult to attribute increases in Disney stock value with loan defaults.  In other words - it just isn't that simple. -- Kainaw (what?) 13:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * We don't yet know how the current credit crunch will shake out. Specifically we don't know whether it will lead to deflation, which would benefit savers, or to inflation, which would hurt savers, or to deflation followed by inflation (in which case savers should invest when the direction shifts).  Furthermore, your experience as a saver could depend on the currency or currencies in which you hold your savings.  There is a fair chance that the Federal Reserve will lower interest rates for the US dollar if credit troubles persist, in which case saved dollars are likely to lose purchasing value relative to other currencies.  In other words, it is impossible to know how the future will play out, and savers will fare differently depending on their circumstances.  Marco polo 18:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is (generally) in the interest of everybody to have a strong economy, if enough borrowing problems exist then it could affect the wider economy, spending things like that and thus be negative for pretty much everyone. Those with savings tend to fare better than those with no money, but in a recession most people will lose. ny156uk 18:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

fatmouse
Do we have anything on the "FATMOUSE" internet phenomona or meme, and if not should we?87.102.4.73 09:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

On wikipedia, no. Unless you mean the User:Fatmouse.martianlostinspace email me 11:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Re "should we", see WP:WEB. --Dweller 13:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See also this discussion held over a year ago. ---Sluzzelin talk  13:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting - I was looking at internet meme I thought fatmouse was as notable as 'star wars kid' (and more notable than Gary Brolsma who still has an article).83.100.174.137 16:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You could be right. We do get things wrong sometimes, especially at deletion discussions with low participation. If there's enough verifiable coverage of the subject in reliable sources, we should have an article on the subject. On the other hand, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS means that perhaps the other memes should be deleted, lol. --Dweller 16:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I note 'fatmouse' doesn't score that high on a google search - though it does crop up regularily on forums - the comments (tags) poeple add under their posts etc. (could be just me though) It's definately a geniune meme.
 * Personally I'd like to know more about who 'did it' etc if that can be found out. I haven't got much more info on it except to say "it exists".User:83.100.174.137|83.100.174.137]] 17:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Note WP:OTHERSTUFF: Just because one questionable article exists, that does not justify another one. The territory of "memes" is vastly inflated, and it is about time for our swing back the other way.  A real meme is not a real encyclopedic subject by itself.  It has to spread outside of its own medium.  Just as a film needs an audience and a novel needs readers, a "meme" needs to get off the Internet to be more than just a localized chatting point.  Utgard Loki 17:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

the occurence
Hi, I'm looking for a short story "The occurence", whose author I believe is Roald Dahl? Does anybody know where I can get it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.49.140.75 (talk • contribs)
 * Not An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge by Ambrose Bierce, available free online at ? Interestingly, it is in a list of good short stories along with "Beware of the Dog" by Roald Dahl . Some good free reading here. Edison 15:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As to that second external link, is there any reason to suppose that that particular Roald Dahl story is out of copyright? I looked through the site, but didn't see any information on copyright (except to claim that they have copyright to everything). Sadly, it looks like it might be a breach, and so may not be a good thing to link too :-( Hope someone can find something to indicate otherwise. Skittle 23:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In the EU, Dahl's stories are certainly not out-of-copyright, as he died in 1990, and copyright subsists for 70 years from death. This is not legal advice, simply the knowledge of a moderately responsible citizen with a passion for literature. DuncanHill 23:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Outside of the EU, most countries are signatories of the Berne Convention - which ensures copyright on things like books last for 50 years after the authors' death - so we have at least 30 years to wait. SteveBaker (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no title containing the word occurrence in the list of Roald Dahl short stories. --Lambiam 15:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My copy of The Collected Short Stories of Roald Dahl Penguin Books, 1992, ISBN 0-14-015807-3 contains no story by that title either. DuncanHill 16:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

financial sector regulator
Examine critically, the effectiveness of the financial sector regulatory agencies. Give possible recommendationss for their shortcomings.Akinmusi 14:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)akinmusi


 * -- Kainaw (what?) 14:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ha ha this must be the worst attempt at getting help with homework i'e seen. Look at FSA, look at Finance and the 'see also' sections. Read the FT. Also try rewording your question in a non-homework manner. You can do it I know you can! ny156uk 18:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It isn't the worst. The worst ones include the question number. -- Kainaw (what?) 19:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Who is Jane McManus Storm Cazneau?
Thank you for your answers to my questions on Argentina. This was for part of a study on history of Spanish speaking America. Please I now need to know more about this lady and see nothing here TheLostPrince 18:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This link may help. DuncanHill 18:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

There is so much more to be said about this wonderfully named lady than that rather sketchy outline in the link provided by Duncan.

She was born Jane Maria Eliza McManus, who after her marriage to Allen Storm took to signing herself simply as 'Storms'. A second marriage was to add the Cazenau to her wonderful array of names. Growing up in Troy, New York State, she attended the local female academy, one of the earliest colleges for women. In 1832 she and her brother Robert moved to Texas, then still part of Mexico, and became involved in land speculation. When this failed she turned to journalism, working first for Horace Greeley, editor of the New Yorker. Later she wrote for a number of other papers, including the New York Sun and the Democratic Review, both strong advocates of manifest destiny. Storms embraced this with enthusiasm, and was to go on to be a firm believer, northerner though she was, in the expansion of the South, and of slavery, its 'peculiar institution', into central America and the Caribbean. In the Sun she filed stories during the Mexican-American War adocating the annexation of all of Mexico. She went the front, where she witnessed Zachary Taylor's capture of the fortress of Vera Cruz in March 1847, the first female war correspondent in American history.

At the end of the Mexican war she turned her attention to Cuba, and the potential it represented, advocating its annexation, and denouncing its Spanish colonial overlords. She later settled at Eagle Pass, a frontier village three hundred miles up the Rio Grande from the Gulf of Mexico, getting to know many of the local Indian chiefs. With her second husnband she moved to the Dominican Republic in 1855, where she was to remain for most of what was left of her life. Despite her earler sympathies for southern expansionism she disapproved of secession, and was hired by William H. Seward, Lincoln's Secretary of State, to write denunciations of the Confederacy. It was a matter of simple principle for Storms: the war was a serious interruption to further prospects of American expansion in the Caribbean. She had lived a life of storms, and it seems only fitting that she met death in the same fashion. In 1878 she was drowned on her way to Santo Dominigo, after the steamer on which she was travelling was caught in a huge storm. Clio the Muse 04:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Tidbit: Cazneau's biographer Linda S. Hudson argues that Cazneau actually coined the phrase "manifest destiny." This is briefly discussed in the article John L. O'Sullivan. —Kevin Myers 14:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Partition of India
I watched an interesting documentary last night on the violence that followed the creation of the separate states of India and Pakistan sixty years ago this month. I have been reading through the pages here for more information, but still find the whole thing enormously complex. I know its always dangerous to ask for a simplification of any difficult political process, but that is just what I want! Who was at fault and why; was it the British, the Hindus, the Muslims, Nehru, Jinnah, who? Am I asking for the earth? Some of you may think so. Stockmann 18:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that any one party can be singled out for blame. Neither of the parties most responsible for partition, the British or Jinnah's Muslim League, foresaw the violence that it would engender. For both the British and the Muslim League, it was an intellectual solution to the problem posed by the escalation in communal violence during 1946-1947 and the prospect of majority rule in a Hindu-majority India.  Neither the British or the Muslim League foresaw the passions that would be unleashed in the already-existing context of communal violence when people felt forced to flee their lifelong homes.  This is not to say that they could not have foreseen this, but I'm not sure that they can be blamed for not foreseeing this.  In principle, I think that the British can be blamed for not having worked harder to mediate between Congress and the Muslim League and to negotiate either ironclad guarantees of minority rights for Muslims in a united India or else a peaceful transition to partition without rancor and with compensation to those who felt compelled to relocate.  Arguably, they should have done this during the interwar years.  On the other hand, in 1947 the British had just fought a war that threatened their own existence and were desperately short of resources and personnel to rebuild their own country.  The British simply did not have the resources after 1939 to manage a peaceful transition in India.  Marco polo 20:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Marco, with one minor modification: yes, no one party is to be blamed; they all are, to some degree or other. Ghandi and Congress for basing the independence movement on specifically Hindu values; for promoting campaigns of 'non-violence' paradoxically rooted in violence. Nehru for underestimating Jinnah and the attractions of faith for the Muslim masses over the secular ideology of socialism. Jinnah for his personal ambition, for playing on Muslim fears of a Hindu dominated India, and for calling in August 1946 for a 'Direct Day of Action', the prologue to a year of almost continuous inter-communal violence. The British for having deliberately engineered divisions between the two great faiths earlier in the century to shore up their political position. The worst aspect of this policy was the introduction of communal electorates, with Muslims voting exclusively for other Muslims. This meant that in the elections of 1946 the Muslim League won 425 of the 496 Muslim seats; a mandate, in effect, for Pakistan. But you may have gathered, Stockmann, if you watched the same BBC documentary on Tuesday night that I did, that an extra responsibility attaches to how the process of partition and independence was managed; and more specifically to the individual who was charged with managing the process. Yes, the British could no longer hold India; but they left with a haste, and with such uncertainty over the final borders, particularly in the Punjab and Kashmir, that did much to guarantee mass violence. In addition, it is no longer possible to overlook Lord Louis Mountbatten's personal contribution to the tragedy; the way in which his apparent favouritism towards Nehru angered Jinnah. I read an article on the whole subject of partition quite recently, which quotes a Punjab official speaking to a graduate just out from Oxford. His words might serve as the epitaph for Empire, "You British believe in fair play. You have left India in the same condition of chaos as you found it." Clio the Muse 02:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Jinnah, it must be said, lacked any of the qualities of charm and personability which Nehru had in spades, and Mountbatten was highly susceptible to charm. DuncanHill 02:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is an impossible question to answer. The immediate responsibility for the chaos of Partition lies almost certainly with the established state power; namely Mountbatten's government. However, they cannot be held responsible for the new Labour party government's decision to withdraw as soon as possible; and that decision was made not only for reasons of pragmatism (there was after all no shortage of men under arms so soon after the War) but for reasons of solidarity with India and their fellow socialists in the Congress party in particular. The rush to Partition came ultimately because of the rush to Independence, and that was not Jinnah's fault, or that of the British, but of Congress and of Gandhi.
 * What caused the rush to deteriorate into chaos? If the ultimate cause was Britain and Divide and rule, the most responsibility here seems to accrue, in most scholars' opinion, to the Muslim League and to Jinnah personally. Jinnah was dying; he was convinced that without him the League would founder and Pakistan would be lost. So he pushed a little harder than was prudent.
 * What caused the hatred between communities? Partly a strain of soft Hindu-centric nationalism in the Congress - not Nehru or Gandhi, but definitely Patel and others, going back to Bal Gangadhar Tilak; I do not think that Gandhi himself was responsible for much of that. (He certainly did not base the movement on specifically Hindu values.) But here, again, some of the reason is surely the British love for categorisation and classification of the governed. No coincidence, surely, that so many British colonies split apart violently. (Palestine. Cyprus. India.)
 * The truth was that blaming national actors is unsatisfying because the violence was mostly local in origin, and, although the stories of refugee columns and trains being attacked are true and harrowing, the vast majority of fatalities came from people killing their neighbours, with whom they had frequently lived in peace for years. And in the end, the responsibility is their own. Calcutta, for example, saw thousands dead in the years of 1946 and 47; but the revulsion was so great after what is called 'the great killing' that it has been an oasis of communal peace since then.Hornplease 10:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It always makes me smile when people write that 'this is an impossible question to answer' and then proceed to an answer! It is for me a simple truth that every historical question, no matter how difficult, is capable of answer; serious history would be impossible otherwise. Anyway, facts, facts; always and forever facts. The Labour government did not decide on rapid withdrawal from India because of 'solidarity with India', whatever that is supposed to mean, but because Britain was virtually bankrupt. Even if the political will existed to send 'men under arms' to India, the financial means to do so were almost entirely absent. Local violence was only and always a reflection of national divisions; divisions in politics and, above all, divisions in religion. And, as far as Ghandi is concerned, there is a perfectly legitimate view that dates the alienation of the Muslims to the 1920s, when he emerged as the unchallenged leader of Congress nationalism, dressing and acting as a Hindu saint, holding out the promise of Ramrajya, the Hindu utopia. In the elections of 1946 a League poster asked people to "judge whether the bricks of votes should be used in the preparation of a fort of 'Ram Raj' or for the construction of a building for the independence of Muslims and Islam". You will also recall from the BBC documentary, Stockmann, the way in which Muslims tried to sabotage Ghandi's last great 'peace offensive' by scattering thorns and the like in his bare-footed path.

As you may imagine, in this sixtieth year of the creation of India and Pakistan, there is a lot of new publications on the whole issue of partition and the independence movement. If you are looking to understand the whole question in a little more depth you might care to try The Great Partition: the Making of India and Pakistan by Yasmin Khan, or Indian Summer: the Secret History of the End of an Empire by Alex von Tunzelman. There is also a good piece by Ramachandra Guha in the recent issue of the BBC History Magazine. You might also wish to look at The Last Thousand Days of the British Empire by Peter Clarke, which links Britain's political and economic condition at the end of the war to the whole international situation, and with particular reference to the decision to leave both Indian and Palestine. And now I can happily conclude (why not?) with a sigh! Clio the Muse 23:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't want to get into it, but Prime Minister Clement Attlee strongly believed in the immorality of the continued occupation of India; he and his fellow Fabians in England were close correspondents with the most prominent member of the Fabian society outside England, Nehru; he personally admired Keir Hardie strongly, for example, and in his last years thought that presiding over independence was his greatest act. (He must have been forced to wait at the NHS.)
 * Patrick French, who previously thought that Jinnah was misunderstood and Gandhi a canny operator, seems to have evolved, as right now, towards blaming HMG in Whitehall .Hornplease 03:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Religion
I was in a discussion regarding my belief in reincarnation. I believe that our souls are reincarnated in order to learn the lesson we did not learn in our previous lives. I was challenged with reference to 'The Book of Lamb', something I'm not familiar with, According to ‡'The Book of Lamb', as I was told, we are only admitted into the Kingdom of Heaven once, which disputes the reincarnation theory since we may reincarnate as another person but our soul would remain as who we are.

My question is, what is 'The Book of Lamb' and is it part of the Bible? What religion is it derived from? Is it Old Testament?

Whatever information you can offer on this subject it would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time.

???? Irish1955 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irish1955 (talk • contribs)


 * I'm not sure what the Book of Lamb is, but it is not part of the Bible - at least, no version of it that I am familiar with. As far as reincarnation being a no-go because we are only admitted into the Kingdom of Heaven once, I can't see that the two ideas are totally incompatible. Perhaps we keep going round until we get it right, at which point we break out of the circle and enter the Kingdom of Heaven - or something like it. I'm fairly certain the Buddhists have considered this question. - Eron Talk 19:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Eron, I'm afraid I can't be very specific, but the Bible (ie Revelation) has loads imagery which seem to make little sense to me at first glance, anyway. If it is from the Bible, Revelation would be it. And I mean a perfectly decent number of popular and respected versions of the Bible, not one random, eccentric version championed by one fringe cult.  The "Book of the Lamb" does not sound like it would be the bounds of revelation.martianlostinspace email me 20:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Another name for Book of Life (Judaism), perhaps?martianlostinspace email me 20:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope. Not only is that not what the Book of Life is about in Judaism, said Book of Life is not a tangible, physical book. Furthermore, (simplification alert) Judaism does believe in reincarnation. --Dweller 20:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK.martianlostinspace email me 20:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

First, let me clarify that I was not suggesting that nothing which could be considered a reference to "the Book of the Lamb" was in the Bible; I meant that while there are many Books in the Bible - Genesis, Exodus, Revelation, etc., there was no book called the Book of the Lamb. Looking further into Revelation, chapter 21 verse 27 reads "Nothing impure will ever enter [Heaven], nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life." I agree that it is a short walk from "the Lamb's book of life" to "the Book of the Lamb." Googling "the Book of the Lamb" also turns up a number of Latter-Day Saints references, so there could be a Mormon connection. - Eron Talk 21:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It sounds as if it is an attempt at a reference to a work of theology. Now, given that it is not one of the principle works of any world religion that anyone has been able to uncover, the gates open wide.  Certainly, it is orthodox to say that there is only one incarnation and that various scholastics worked this out, but we're not getting bells ringing on that title even among theologians.  Mormonism has a great deal more to say about metempsychosis than Christianity does, as it has a very defined belief in pre-existing essences, and the paschal terminology would not be particularly attractive to Jewish thinkers, so it very likely is a Mormon work.  Utgard Loki 18:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Mormons consider themselves Christian. Some Christian churches consider Mormons not Christian.  Geogre 20:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Randomness (Philosophy)
Hello,

I was talking about this with a friend and we wondered how to answer this problem : I think that, when throwing a dice, if it is assumed that the throwing is random and that every face has a probability to occur superior to 0, that every (finite) sequence will appear in the succession of numbers.

In some sense like Champernowne's constant (where every finite sequence imaginable appears in the decimal expansion). But my friend says that it is possible that the same number occurs an infinite number of times (like, six would infinitely occur, with no other number ever occurring). While I agree that this can happen for any finite number of throws (for example, that after 1 000 000 throws, the only number to ever occur is 6), I don't think it could happen for an infinite number of throws.

(Of course, we both assume the throwing is random and that the probability of ever face to occur is superior to 1, as in a situation that isn't totally random, one number could effectively never occur even in an infinite string of throws (for example, the dice being thrown in always the same way, and the same number occurring infinetely)

--Xedi 19:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

$$1/6^x$$ Where x is the number of throws. As x approaches infinity, the likelihood of the same number continuing to occur gets extremely small. However, I think that it is approaching an asymptope that is >0. Thus, I don't think that you can say that the same number couldn't occur an infinite amount of times. You can only say that the odds of that happening are right next to impossible. Just my thoughts. Mrdeath5493 19:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that no matter how many throws we are talking about, it is possible for only one number to appear. The odds of such an event happening would reduce down to:


 * $$1/6^x$$ goes to zero as x goes to infinity. Give me the smallest number you want greater than zero and I'll show you an x such that $$1/6^x$$ is smaller than that number. So it's asymptotic to zero. iames 21:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * See Almost surely. An infinite number of rolls of a single number (as well as any other infinite sequence you fully specify) happens "almost never" -- with probability zero. Note that "probability zero" does not mean "impossible." iames 20:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Almost surely article describes your question nicely under "Tossing a coin" by the way. Just that you have a six-sided coin. iames 21:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the answers. So what particular (additional) properties would be necessary so that any finite sequence of numbers between 1 and 6 is contained in sequence of throws ? A property that, for example, π possesses (I think), as Pi can't contain an infinity of the same digit in a row. Is it just the fact that Pi is not rational ?
 * (And yes, maybe this would be more appropriate at the mathematics desk...)
 * --Xedi 22:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Replying to your aside, I don't think it's known whether pi has this property or not (it's not enough that pi is irrational; there are irrational numbers whose decimal expansions contain only 0s and 1s). Replying to your question, the nearest I can think of is the concept of a (base 10) normal number, where every finite sequence not only occurs but occurs the 'right' proportion of the time. Algebraist 00:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I fell on a concept called "Nombre univers" on the french Wikipedia that seems to describe this (a "nombre univers" is a number whose decimal expansion contains any finite sequence of digits). Pi is thought to be a "nombre univers", but it hasn't been proven.
 * Would it be so special for an infinite sequence of throws with a dice to correspond to a "nombre univers", so that every finite sequence is contained ? Would it be possible to give a probability for this to happen ? --Xedi 01:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The question is a bit curious in the following sense. The question has the form: "if you do X, could Y happen?". Here X = "throw a dice an infinite number of times", and Y is "six comes up each time". But X is impossible: you can't throw a die an infinite number of times, and so you can't see an infinity of sixes coming up. So the question is in a sense: "if you do , could  happen?". The answer may depend on the precise meaning of the words you use; the normal everyday meaning of the words is too vague to settle this. --Lambiam 01:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, what precisions could be made to be able to settle this ?
 * Would it be fundamentally different to, instead of taking an infinite sequence of dice throws, taking an infinite sequence of digits of pi (possibly in base 6, and maybe add 1 to each digit for it to be 1 through 6) ? Now, Pi is always the same, and changing the starting point of the sequence wouldn't change that much in the end. Would another type of number correspond better to the situation ? --Xedi 02:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The number π is quite definitely not random, so you get a completely different question. We know that it is not a rational number, so we also know that there is no tail of repeating digits, in any base. As to the meaning of the words, you could agree to agree that "if X happens, then anything is possible" is a true statement if X is something that is impossible. You know, by definition, that you don't run the risk this will be falsified by an actual experiment. In that case the answer to the original question is that an infinite sequence of sixes is indeed possible. But you could also agree to take the opposite position, with even less risk of an experiment proving you wrong. --Lambiam 02:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. In mathematics, there are theorems that say "If X exists, then it has the properties Y and Z", even though it is finally discovered X cannot exist.
 * Why is the fact that it is impossible to throw a die an infinite number of times relevant here ? --Xedi 02:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Your thought experiment is not mathematics. While I know that you can't throw a die an infinite number of times, I cannot prove that it is impossible. And in normal discourse, words do not necessarily mean the same as they do in mathematical jargon. If the die is not fair, it is quite conceivable that six comes up every time you throw it. How do you know a given die is fair? In mathematics, mathematical objects have properties that are true by definition. A given real die cannot be fair by definition. The only way you can find out is by throwing it, and even then you can, at best, conclude with high confidence that it is a good approximation of the ideal fair die. So the abstractions of mathematics will only lead you so far, but no farther. The other day there was a question at the maths section of the RD: "suppose I have drawing/measuring instruments of infinite precision ... and if I measure the hypotenuse, it will be some FINITE PRECISE number". Well, how would you read off an "infinite precise" number from the scale of your instrument? You can't. So you get at best a finite imprecise number. Likewise, for your die, you can only get finite approximations to the "ideal" notion of an infinite sequence. Without further elucidation, it is not clear that the question is meaningful. --Lambiam 03:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I understand. --Xedi 17:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to correct my point earlier: $$1/6^x$$ has an asymptope of zero. This means that as x approaches infinity the probability never goes to zero, it only gets extremely close. (Earlier I had said the asymptope was >0, this was wrong. Mrdeath5493 06:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Naseby
Can Charles I's decision to fight at Naseby be considered as his biggest military blunder? General joffe 20:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure. Why not?  Just get some facts to back your theory and let others debate it.  Some may agree.  Some may disagree. -- Kainaw (what?) 02:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Clio, I thought you might have a view on this? General joffe 11:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say it's easy for us to find fault with strategic military decisions of long ago with the benefit of 'twenty-twenty' hindsight - and generally with some intelligence that the protagonists didn't have. Naseby wasn't Charles's choice of battleground, it's where Fairfax caught up with his army. The King had to decide whether to fight or to run away, and there were obvious disadvantages in running away. Rupert and others persuaded him to fight, and although that can be seen as a bad decision, we don't know that the other course would have turned out better. You may ask, 'Should Charles have been facing that dilemma'? An arguably more critical decision for him came earlier in the year, when he could have attacked the New Model Army while it was weaker. But his problem was that he was fighting on several fronts at once and had to watch his back everywhere: something like playing three-dimensional chess without being able to see where all the other player's pieces are, and not knowing whether your own pieces will be able to move as you decide to move them!


 * Winston Churchill once wrote an essay from an imaginary future called something like What might have happened if Germany had not invaded Great Britain in 1940? It shows the problems of going back and changing what we believe were critical turning points in history.


 * On the subject of retreat, when I was a small boy I was told this by an old soldier of the Empire: "The enemy retreats. The British and Indian Armies have sometimes needed to withdraw to a more favourable position". Xn4 19:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That phrase was reworked by the Marines into, "Marines never retreat. We advance in the opposite direction." -- Kainaw (what?) 19:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do have a view! Sorry I've not been able to reply sooner.

Why, indeed, did the King decide to fight at Naseby when the odds were so heavily against the Royalists? Sadly for him, it was not just another battle but the great defining moment of the First Civil War. It blooded the recently formed New Model Army, and gave it a taste for victory it was never to lose. Charles had effectively handed his enemies the one great opportunity that they needed. Defeat was all the more tragic because the campaign had opened with such promise for the Royalist cause. They had taken the Parliamentary stronghold of Leicester, just as Sir Thomas Fairfax, commander-in-chief of the New Model Army, was forced to abandon the siege of Oxford, the King's headquarters. It had not been Charles' original intention to face Fairfax in battle. Rather, as the enemy aproached his camp at Market Harborough on the evening of 13 June, he was intending to withdraw to the north and join up with the garrison at Newark. At the last moment he changed his mind, after his scouts reported that Fairfax was at Naseby. Why? The simple answer is that we do not know for certain.

According the account set down later by Clarendon in his History of the Great Rebellion, a council of war was held in the early hours of 14 June, at which Prince Rupert, an able soldier and the King's best commander, urged that the withdrawal continue. This was opposed by Lord Digby and Jack Ashburnham, Charles' chief civilian advisers, who argued that such a move would be dishonourable and demoralising. Charles agreed and overruled Rupert. But Clarendon, writing in 1671, was drawing on an earler account by Sir Edward Walker, who was not at the meeting and would appear to have been drawing purely on stories that only began to circulate after the defeat. Digby himself, the chief villain of the occasion, was to deny that any such meeting ever took place. It seems likely that the story of divided counsels was invented as a 'settling of accounts', devised with the specific intention of passing the blame on to the 'politicians', thus exempting both Charles and Rupert. But it is far more likely, drawing on evidence of previous debates in the royal council, that the decision to fight was theirs, and theirs alone. They may have believed that they had the initiative; they may not have known that Fairfax's force outnumbered their own by some 5000 men; they may have believed that New Model Army, as yet untested in open battle, was made up of many green troops. We simply do not know. It was a blunder; we know that much. Clio the Muse 00:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Clio has all this at her fingertips. Clearly I may be wrong in thinking that Prince Rupert was one of those who wanted to stand and fight. Xn4 03:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I wonder when Clio will get to work writing a history book to replace those bland pathetic ones most schools use. -- Kainaw (what?) 12:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Soon, she hopes! Clio the Muse 02:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

the obfuscating squid
Looking for a quote: of whom was it said (to paraphrase) that he wrote so much but actually said so little that he was like a squid, hiding behind its own ink?

thanks Adambrowne666 22:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The metaphor occurs in the poem Elucidation Blues by John M. Burns, the text of which can be found here. --Lambiam 02:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Good stuff, thanks, Lambiam. I also have a memory of it being a witty criticism of some olde worlde British writer or politician by one of his contemporaries. Does that ring any bells? Adambrowne666 21:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

bicentennial print of Tn
I am trying to find information on a print that was done in the 1990's for Tn.'s bicentennial. The artist name appears to be A.Henry, and shows various scenes of TN. If located where could I purchase one? Laura —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.253.185 (talk • contribs)
 * What is Tn? DuncanHill 23:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Tennessee. Edison 23:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)