Keith,
Good. Keep the thread on topic. encouraging smile

Tzeentch,
Nihilists would/could live short " living proof(s) of the...........". smile.
Tom Storm,
Glad that's cleared up.:grin:

Sorry, perhaps "...interpreting from.."rather than "...guessing at..." is a better expression by way of explanation.

Surprised by your reaction. Merely agreeing that philosophic understanding is best served by examination of the expressed thoughts than guessing at the circumstances of philosophers' lives, much of which is conjecture from a later era.
Apologies, thought you may have seen a connection between ballsports having a process to purpose and philosophic processes.with purpose.

Tom Storm,
If this analogy to your overall answer to Shawn's question is acceptable... play the ball, not the man... then.... agreed.

Shawn, Your thread question may become moot if ever AI becomes refined/enhanced to the point of producing/remixing different philosophies into "original or apparently new" philosophic directions/ideas.
Such "creations" being seemingly closer than might be wanted by existing philosophers is one perspective. Denying that AI could ever have such capacity is another perspective.

Improving critical thinking, ethical awareness and reasoning skills are admirable aims, but are they likely to stifle or discourage imagination, lateral thinking and the power of rhetoric in socializing ( to name a few possibilities) at the time of such developments in children and thereby regimenting collectivism/ conformity while reducing individual divergency/ diversity development.
A balance would be a gamble the results of which would be hard to alter if not wanted/liked, perhaps?
Just a concern, not a criticism of what you seem to be reaching for. smile.

Fannel Jesus

No paradox with the old lady.
Just different periods of the past in her life.
Won't a better paradox be if set in the present tense.
Just a suggestion. smile

Sorry Fishfry,
Never in memory, has "pure" mathematics been of such interest as now. Feel like you've open a window and there's a gale blowing in, here.
Had more questions about l c omega, but will give them further thought first. And catch up with you elsewhere and later. Lounge perhaps in a few days?

Fishfry
Fair enough.
Nothing new of interest, comes to mind. Apart from adding negative l c omega with (to?) (positive) l c omega and getting the same answer as subtracting them,(still in the realms of arithmetic,) presumably zero?
There that pesky zero again. Thanks again.

Fishfry
Yes,very helpful.Thank you for taking the time.
Which begs the question, (smile) how, if it's possible, would "the lower case omega" concept of "upper (lower?) limit" be applied to all integers? Surely, if it's possible,this could be useful in some areas of mathematics ( besides arithmetic ).
Sorry,don't mean to hijack this thread.

Fishfry
Is minus one a natural number? And, is zero a natural number? Mathematicians' mathematics is not a strong suit for some. sad smile at one's own ignorance

Keystone
Fair enough re: potential vs actual infinity. Will continue reading the thread hoping to learn. smile

Still wrestling with how there can be a last step or a first step in infinite steps probably because it appears arbitrary to impose mathematical limits to the concept of "infinity". Can understand the "human" need to do so, hence limiting infinite steps to a "mere" 'series of'.

Perhaps, when translating from mathematical to non-maths usage, infinity acquires an extra qualification i.e. potentiality, which is required to make any use of "infinity" useful as a quantifier. Otherwise, saying anything other than numbers can or can't be infinite leads to issues of illogic.
Maybe, Aristotle was mistakenly "transcribed" from his words or personal writings as "only potential infinity" instead of "infinity of potentiality(ies).

Infinity minus one equals infinity

Would the above qualify as a paradox, or just be silly in "the" non abstract and possible realm but fit into the abstract and possible realm? Or the reverse?
Can a paradox be conceived in the a&p realm?

Sorry if the above "thoughts" are confusing or ill expressed.

Lioino... Yr appreciation duelly noted, with a smile and a possibly deliberate spelling "mistake". another smile.
ssu.... Why do you think "...the whole monetary system will.... collapse"? Particularly, as you set this thought in a shorter than geological time frame, if that is yr intention?. Genuinely curious.

Thank you, Benkei.

Yes,what is the current situation? Anyone the wiser? History supports/ highlights/encourages ssu's line of questions. Individuals may "frown" at their (the questions') expression/ vocabulary. :smile: Notwithstanding, although the issue may be the EU's now, when other govts attempt to crash proof certain industries, such mechanisms will again be canvassed.

Does a certain/particular mindset/frame of mind matter? If "yes", is it because mindset (may?) influences the quality of those philosophic thoughts? If "no", is it because all philosophic thoughts have sufficient worth/ quality unconditionally dependent upon the mindset at the time of their inception?
Last question: Can a mindset be described without judging its potential output of thoughts?
Sorry for the "Organic or first principles" nature of this comment. Definitely no aggression meant. After all, it's the Lounge, not the S/box. smile with world wise sad tinge.

Sorry to spoil this thread's 8 yr history of 0 replies, but yr propositional layout is too important/tantalizing to ignore. "Brighter minds" are probably hoping no one suggests such a creation/use of EFT- shares because it (might) corrodes their current exemption status. Also, any loss of flexibility/control over the particular mix of their portfolios; they undoubted trade parts of their "buy and hold" ( resort the mix) when they deem it advantageous/ necessary, would be resisted.
But back to yr suggested structure, the concern would be: if the market is stressed enough to cause the funds issues converting bonds to cash to satisfy a margin call, won't "yr" EFT securities be downgraded in value when the end user converts them to cash?
But that's not the real issue is it? The CCP's purpose is to prevent the over reaching of pension funds... mismanagement that is, causing loss to the pension funds' investors. Can tying up a portion of a pension fund's collateral help or just take pressure of national governments propping up f/ailing pension funds? Probably!
The Australian Federal govt/Reserve Bank holds cash reserves of banks in country ( they were called Short and Long term deposits...50 yrs ago.Don't know the current name for them) in return for govt guaranteeing "extreme" margin calls...runs...
Sadly,this reply hasn't answered yr question, just restated the reason for yr creative thinking. Can't put the finger on it, but like you sense, there is a feeling that yr layout lacks something. Hope this hasn't wasted yr time (reading this), but at least shows there are others who share such interests, if not yr level of informedness...
Did the PFs eventually get brought into the CCP's net? If so, under which system, standard cash conversion or mixed quality bonds... pay good money for a pg in a poke?....smile tinged with world wise sadness.