what's the meaning of post-russellian and propter-russellian?
81186
"post hoc ergo propter hoc" is a commonly used Latin phrase which translates literally to "after this, therefore because of this."\nIt means that if something happened after something, it was caused by that thing.\n\n"Post russellian"/"Propter russellian" means, if something came after russellian, it was a result of russellian.
170402
Russell's paradox (two Ls in his name) was a paradox found by Betrand Russell, which showed that 'naive set theory' was contradictory.\n\nBasically, Russell says: Define a set D which consists of all sets which do not contain themselves.  The paradox is that we cannot decide whether D is a member of itself.  If it is a member of itself, then it isn't, and if it isn't, then it is.\n\nThe paradox has led to much more complicated axioms for set theory than one would initially think was necessary.\n\nThis paradox is related to the 'diagonal proofs' that show there are different sizes of infinity and prove Goedel's imcompleteness theorem.
820731
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@\n\n\n**************************************************************\n"Ε Κ Τ Α Κ Τ Α   !!!!\n\n\nΤί λες για: 1........., δ7-δ5;"\n\n***************************************************************\n\n(A)\n(A)\n(A)\n(A)\n(A)\n(A)\n(A)
507215
1) polyglot\n\n2) contemporary
679538
Check this out:\n\nhttp://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/7/messages/381.html
450743
BECAUSE - they are NOT trying to say 'supposedly' at all! They are merely saying "supposably", \n"Sup·pos·a·ble (adj.) - That can be supposed or conjectured: a supposable outcome. Sup·posa·bly adv."\n\nStrangely though it isn't recognised as a word by my British English spell check ... so it must be an Americanism!
1130217
This was taken from Anu Garg's A Word of the Day e-mail.\n\nThe word means:\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nOpposition to separation of the church and state.\n\n[From Latin anti- (against) + dis- (apart, away) + English establish,\nfrom\nLatin stabilire, from stare (to stand) + -arian (one who supports) +\nGreek\n-ism (practice or state).]\n\nAt 28 letters, it's the best-known example of a long word. Here's how you can parse the word: one of the meanings of the word establishment is making a church an institution of the state. In the late 19th century England, there was a movement for the separation of the church and state:  disestablishment.  Those opposed to the idea of separation were antidisestablishmentarians.\n\nYou can see where it's going. Why not a\ncontraantidisestablishmentarianism?
1079661
"Post-Modernism" says that nobody can know everything; therefore, nobody can be absolutely sure about anything; therefore, nobody can be called 'wrong.'\n\nReality says that some things are, and somethings are not, no matter how much you wish they were otherwise.\n\nTake the often-tossed-about question "Does God exist?"  It is ridiculous to say that God may exist for you if you think so, and He doesn't exist for me because I do not think so, but I have heard people make essentially that claim.  I had somebody e-mail me, stating that she didn't believe in God because she didn't like the thought of somebody looking over her; just because she didn't like it doesn't influence reality.\n\nIt was said long ago, "Most people would rather die than think, and in fact they usually do so."
457175
2 + (a + b)\ngiven\n\n2 + (b + a)\ncommutative prop. of addition\n\n(2 + b) + a\nassociative prop. of addition\n\n(b + 2) + a\ncommutative prop. of addition\n\nb + (2 + a)\nassociative prop. of addition\n\n^_^
91347
Semantics, Pros, Etc.
597619
well that last example doesnt work...they divide by zero and try to let it slip.\n\nThings like Russells paradox messed with the mathematical world for a while.  This paradox deals with sets.\n\nIt says that we have a set R, R is the set of all sets that are not members of themselves.  This means that R  is neither a member of itself nor not a member of itself.\n\nThis is pretty neat, and it was a huge problem with set theory.  It was solved by saying that all sets are members of a universe.  I still claim that its a sticky area.\n\nhope this is what you were looking for.\n\nMatttlocke
935411
And yes....\n\nBertrand Russell (1872-1970), a British mathematician and philosopher, was applauded as one of the world’s profound thinkers. In 1959 he was awarded the Nobel Prize for literature on the basis that he was “a defender of humanity and freedom of thought.” He authored more than 40 books covering such subjects as philosophy, education, sex, and morality.
943912
What is axiomatic need not be proved by experience. The data collected only confirms the fact.\n\nThe previous answerer 'libido' sounds like a drop out from the degree college. She does not have elementary knowledge of epistemology and by just quoting Socrates and M.N. Roy an unknown Indian Marxist,  one just can not address such serious issues.\n\n 'Empiricism', 'Truth' and 'Blasphemy' are very ambiguous words and unless one is sure about its philosophic connotation, the debate can not proceed. Rather, we will be landing in total confusion using high sounding words with the least regard to the grammatical norms. 'libido' who loves to brag as a 'rationalist' to please take care of the grammar while framing sentences in English. It is certainly not a proletarian platform for the pseudo Marxists! It is a bourgeoisie club to exchange novel ideas and not ignorance. Beware!
838682
Etymology = post-bellum\nL post {after} + bellum {war}\n\nIn the United States, of the period following the Civil War, especially used in reference to the South. \n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n\nEtymology = bellum\nFrom older form duellum\nbellum (genitive belli); n, second declension war \nSī vīs pācem, parā bellum : If you want peace, prepare war (Flavius Vegetius). \n\n\nCheck out en.wiktionary.org
244095
none except\nmajors are longer, minors are shorter\nall GOD'S WORD is very important-vs by vs-chapter by chapter, choosing subject and object.  know more. contact me.
844003
HI: I tried to answer your email but it said that your email address has not been confirmed and so the email didn't go through.\n\nalpha and beta are scalers for the vector space V.  This problem is actually so easy that people don't believe what they've done.  You really just need to show that Span S behaves like V.  \n\nSpan S must be a vector space itself.  Two elements from the span is \nu=a1*v1 + a2*v2...ak*vk\nand \nw=b1*v1 + b2*v2...bk*vk\n\nshow that alpha*u+beta*w is in Span S where alpha, beta are scalers for your vector space.\n\nalpha*u+beta*w = (alpha*a1+beta*b1)*v1 + ....\nis a linear combination of the vectors in Span S, thus it's in Span S.  \n\nSo, Span S is not empty and is closed, thus its a subspace.
943472
Yes. I'm a partial preterist. The Apocalypse had to have an immediate relevance to the seven churches of the Roman province of Asia, because John was their partner in the tribulation (1:9). The definite article is definitely there with "thlipsis" and supports my preterist leanings. However, Jesus has not returned yet, and that part of the Apocalypse is yet future. So, I'm a Preterist/Futurist, a position that was held and defended by George Elton Ladd (cf. his Commentary on Revelation).