So the intelligence was wrong...

[Epee_Pox]

Going with the economic valuation, Jeff posits that Inq has little intrinsic value to this board, that Slim has zero or negative value, and then concludes that Inq's value to this board is ten times that of Slim.

All this shows is that Jeff is bad at arithmetic.

(Reminding me of the movie quote "I asked for no camels. That's five camels. Can't you count?")

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

All this shows is that Jeff is bad at arithmetic.

Must be why I went into computers - let them do the arithmetic!

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

(Reminding me of the movie quote "I asked for no camels. That's five camels. Can't you count?")

Ooh, which movie?

Excellent, James, Epee_Pox - you guys took it to new levels!

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by jeff

Ooh, which movie?

Excellent, James, Epee_Pox - you guys took it to new levels!

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade...

Although I think the quote is off a little bit...

[Inquartata]

I scarcely know whether to laugh at the trope or weep because of the horrid, nasty math!

[jeff]

Laugh, it's good for you. Now, what was that about laughter and fools?

I drew the line when Peter brought up eigenvalues. That reached my (heh, heh!) limit. Man, there's one of these puns everywhere you look...

Achilleus: thanks - sounded familiar but I couldn't place it.

[Slim]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Mathematically, vectors have no inherent directionality, being merely a n-partite grouping of values along non-parallel basis axis (or scalar multiplications of basis vectors if you prefer). In Newtonian physics, they are defined as having magnitude and direction with both a defined origin and a defined destination. Algebraically, they are represented by an Nx1 matrix. Physically as a Nx2 matrix. A bit of a difference in definition here. (Though most commonly, I'll grant, a vector is assumed to originate at the origin).

10x a matrix can be a number of different values. Assuming Inq and Slim are both multidimensional beings (or, at least, multi-faceted) then we can talk about scalar multiplication of the various personality basis to end up with Inq being 10 times greater in magnitude then Slim, with us taking both the good and the bad. This would merely mean that Inq is 10 times as intense along all dimensions as Slim. Depending on how we define the personality vectors, we can get Inq being 10 times as good, bad, or any combination in between. (In fact, if anyone wants to go through the permutations and combinations of 10 x Slim = Inq it would certainly help clarify the problem here).

Course, we could narrow the results and define 10x Slim being a vector (or even a matrix!) with some distribution of values to end up with a dot product describing Inq 10 times greater in magnitude. Depends on what we mean when we say "10 times Slim = Inq".

Though in the spirit of Inq, I would assume that the valuation was 10x the economic value of Slim, not 10x the personality. And we all know (as Inq has repeatedly shown us) that economic valuation is all about returns over investments. Meaning that an investment in Inq will generate an economic output 10 times what an investment in Slim would be. Depending on the projected lifespan and depreciation of Inq/Slim, we could work out a total cost to society for every investment in Inq/Slim to determine who has the higher economic valuation. Course, then Inq would assume that this is a perfect market and the actors in it highly rational and so we would have no choice but to invest 100% in whomever was the market winner.

Again, the mitigating circumstance here is whether Inq is a balanced person or not. If he's not at equilibrium then the price he charges for his opinion may not be in line with his ability to generate said opinion when the Politics folder demands it. Though his lack of a response to date seems to imply some sort of economy of posting volume and a diminshing return on investment to the Politics folder.

The only other question is the absolute value Jeff brought up. If Inq is predominantly negative (and aren't all curmudgeons?) then Slim must be only slightly negative (as 10x Slim equals Inq) if 10x Slim = Inq is defined as a scalar x a Matrix. Note, negative ~= evil. If, however, we define Slim as a positive valuation of Slim as a person in the Economic space, then it is safe to assume that 10x Slim = Inq is merely a simple valuation differential rather then a complex one. With Inq having higher intrinsic value (and thus represented by a simple scalar real positive number representing his objective valuation in a Capitalist market) then Slim.

I would propose that the original matrix definition of Inq is probably the most accurate approximation with 10x Slim being, in fact, a very complicated formulation of matrix manipulation in N-personality space.

James.

Wow. Very thorough analysis. I'm honestly impressed. Nice work James, and good job breaking the tension.

Slim

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Slim

Wow. Very thorough analysis. I'm honestly impressed. Nice work James, and good job breaking the tension.

Slim

I'm Canadian. It's what we're trained to do. Mostly because we spend long winters huddled together in igloos and tension creates passion which creates heat which, in turn, melts the house.

*grin*

But thank you for your compliment.

James.

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by achilleus

Well, here's where disagree. Yes, this country had fits and starts in the beginning, and yes arguments can be made for Iraq not being too bad, but are you seriously saying that this administration hasn't learned since the revolutionary war?

I wonder if any politician really learns from the past...

Originally Posted by achilleus

Seriously though, in every business field I've worked in, if people made mistakes the level that the Bush administration has (wrong research, underprepared, poor financial projections, etc...) there would be massive firings. Massive. This entirely leaves out the question of 'did they lie/mislead/deceive us. However when you look at the mistakes, listen to the testimony of others you have to wonder, 'Is our government/this administration so inept as to make these mistakes? Or is it more plausible they misled us? Did they really believe they could build a stable Iraq for so little money, in such little time? Did they really believe in things that couldn't be proven? Don't we have one person in the governent such as Inq, who'll argue to the death that many things they said are fact, haven't been proven?' And to be honest, whether they lied or were incompetent only matters to me in that if they lied, I'd have a little more confidence in their ability to get the job done.

I think it's probably a combination of ineptness and egomania coupled with a few hardworking idiots (the worst of all combinations), and a FEW deliberate liars (on both sides of the aisle).

Originally Posted by achilleus

But shouldn't we demand accountability and competence from our leaders?

We do every election day... or rather we have the opportunity to do so...

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by gojujay

I wonder if any politician really learns from the past...

Too true. Although, we'll see, because in the past, what the Bush administration is attempting to do in Iraq has never worked. So let's hope they did.

Originally Posted by gojujay

I think it's probably a combination of ineptness and egomania coupled with a few hardworking idiots (the worst of all combinations), and a FEW deliberate liars (on both sides of the aisle).

No doubt there's a variety of reasons, none of which are really acceptable to me. In addition, I think it's important to ferret out who's who.

Originally Posted by gojujay

We do every election day... or rather we have the opportunity to do so...

Well, if you read the thread on voting issues, some of us don't have the opportunity.

Either way, I think Bush pulled a fast one on the American people and they fell for it by not holding him accountable for the mistakes. Unfortunately for the Republicans, and perhaps our sucess in Iraq, the backlash may not be pretty.