대법원 부정선거 공식 인정, 청주 재검표 주심은 극좌판사, 부정선거 기획팀 이재명 캠프에 합류 시대정신 연구소 https://youtu.be/P5KqJzbhk3A --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 조선일보 앉아서 분리수거 안내, 922억 들인 ‘공공 꿀알바’ kkhh**** 고용동향 통계 왜곡하는 슬슬 꽁초나 줍고 70만 원 받는 자활,하천 관리한답시고 가서 커피나 마시면서 시시덕거리다 와도 80만 원 주는 노인 일자리 등 공공 꿀알바로 아까운 국민 혈세 낭비말고 기업이 양질의 일자리를 창출해야지.내 돈 아니라고 마구 퍼질러대는 무능 문을 당장 끌어내려 꽁초 휴지버리듯 내다 버리는게 답이다.. trei**** 문재인 과 민주당식 일자리 창ㅍ출 저런 꿀알바 일자리를 계속 공급하니 문재인 이나 만젓당 지지율이 유지가 되고 그 혈세는 나중에 지금 그들 지지하고 잘한다면서 핧아대는 젊은이들이 죽도록 갚으면 되고. 자업자득이란 말이 딱이군. jhk**** 무능한놈 문재인이 일자리 만든답시고 하는짓이 뭐 그렇지 아침에 한강에 자전거출퇴근하는데 한강 잡초 뽑는사람만 300명정도 보고 신호등마다 깃발든 할머니 할아버지들... 비닐봉다리에 집게 들고 꽁초줍는 할머니 할아버지들.... ㅋㅋㅋ 거기다가 공무원은 10만명을 뽑아놓고... 통계조작해서 국민들 속이고 셀프칭찬하고 함박웃음 짓는 문재인과 문빠들 ㅋㅋㅋ 이게 현실이다. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 국민일보 무인화에 사라지는 일자리… 저숙련 노동자 설 곳 없다 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [출처: 중앙일보] [단독] 충북동지회, 김정은에 혈서 썼다…"원수님의 전사" “영명한 우리 원수님! 만수무강하시라!”(A씨), “위대한 원수님의 영도, 충북 결사옹위 결사관철”(B씨), “생명이 다하는 순간까지 원수님과 함께”(C씨), “원수님의 충직한 전사로 살자”(손씨) --->21세기에 살면서, 15세기적 사고를 하는 집단이다. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 아시아경제 중국CCTV, 이재명 “대통령 되면 사드 배치 철회” 보도 --->이제는 중국에도 잘보여야 대통령 되나 보다! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 증시 폭락을 불러온 중국의 사교육 원천 금지 조치가 나온 것은 담론과 이념을 중앙 정부가 통제해야 한다고 판단했기 때문 ---사우스차이나모닝포스트(지난 3일) ---->출처 유투브 와이(why) 타임즈/ 중국은 역사적으로 퇴행하고 있는데, 과연 어디까지 퇴행할지는 시진핑의 정신상태와 그의 건강에 달려 있다. 문화혁명은 모택동의 죽음으로 10여 년만에 끝났는데, 시진핑이 장수하면 중국이 어디까지 갈지 아무도 모른다. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [중공] 히말라야 산맥에 , 싼샤댐 3배 규모 댐 건설한다! --->중국의 이상기후는 어쩌면 중국이 하고 있다는 "강우 실험"과 저런 대규모 댐 때문일지도 모른다는 게 내 추측이다. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 수학자: 평이한 영어가 때로는 수학 공식보다 더 유용하다 오스트리아 경제학의 비판자들은 프랙시올로지가 부정확한 언어적 논리에 의존하고 있어서, 정확히 평가하기가 어렵다고 한다. 이에 반해 현대 신고전주의 경제학은 상당 부분 수학으로 표현되어 있다. 이에 대해 오스트리아 경제학자는 수학의 함수 관계는 인과 관계를 표현하는데 부적합하다고 지적한다. 물리학에서는 인관 관계가 가정되고 후에 정확히 관측 가능한 규칙성에 바탕해 확인되지만, 프랙시올로지에서는 우리는 이미 작동하는 인관 관계를 알고 있다. 즉 인간의 행동은 의도적인 것으로 언제나 특정 목적을 향하고 있다. ---로스바드(경제학을 공부하기 이전에 수학자였다) Mathematician: Plain English Often Works Better Than Mathematical Notation David Gordon Critics of Austrian economics often say that praxeology lacks rigor. Praxeologists rely on imprecise verbal logic that is difficult to assess. Instead, modern neoclassical economics is to a large extent couched in mathematics. The definitions and axioms of the model used are stated exactly, and then theorems can be proved to follow from them. Isn’t the Austrian school behind the times in not availing itself of the modern tools that mathematics provides? Austrians respond to this that verbal reasoning can be as exact as mathematical, and that there are advantages to avoiding mathematics in economic theory. In particular, the functional equations of mathematics are inadequate to express causal relations. As Murray Rothbard notes, Mathematics rests on equations, which portray mutual relationships between two or more “functions.” Of themselves, of course, such mathematical procedures are unimportant, since they do not establish causal relationships. They are of the greatest importance in physics, for example, because that science deals with certain observed regularities of motion by particles of matter that we must regard as unmotivated. These particles move according to certain precisely observable, exact, quantitative laws. Mathematics is indispensable in formulating the laws among these variables and in formulating theoretical explanations for the observed phenomena. In human action, the situation is entirely different, if not diametrically opposite. Whereas in physics, causal relations can only be assumed hypothetically and later approximately verified by referring to precise observable regularities, in praxeology we know the causal force at work. This causal force is human action, motivated, purposeful behavior, directed at certain ends. (Man, Economy, and State, with Power and Market, pp. 323–24) I’d like to offer support for the first of these contentions, that verbal logic can be as exact as mathematics, from a surprising source. Paul Samuelson was a strong critic of Austrian economics; he said, for example, that Austrian “demonstrated preference” is trivial. Further, he is the economist mainly responsible for making mainstream economics mathematical. But in “Economic Theory and Mathematics—An Appraisal” (American Economic Review, 1952), he says: “In principle, mathematics cannot be worse than prose in economic theory; in principle, it certainly cannot be better than prose. For in deepest logic … the two media are strictly identical.” An article by one of the greatest living mathematicians, Terence Tao, also supports Rothbard’s views, though I hasten to add that I do not know whether Tao has any opinion about the use of mathematics in economics. The article is called “Taking Advantage of the English Language.” In the article, Tao says: Mathematical notation is a wonderfully useful tool, and it can be exciting to learn for the first time the meaning of mysterious and arcane symbols such as \forall, \exists, \emptyset, \implies, etc. However, just because you can write statements in purely mathematical notation doesn’t mean that you necessarily should. In many cases, it is in fact far more informative and readable to use liberal amounts of plain English; if used correctly and thoughtfully, the English language can communicate to the reader on many more levels than a mathematical expression, without sacrificing any precision or rigour. In particular, by subtly modulating the emphasis of one’s text, one can convey valuable contextual cues as to how a statement interacts with the rest of one’s argument. An example should serve to illustrate this point. Suppose for instance that P and Q are properties that can apply to mathematical objects x and y. The mathematical statement P(x) \wedge Q(y), which asserts that x satisfies P and y satisfies Q, is a well-formed and precise mathematical statement. But there are many possible ways one could express that mathematical statement in English, for instance: P(x) and Q(y) are both true. P(x) is true. Also, Q(y) is true. P(x) is true. Furthermore, Q(y) is true. P(x) is true. Therefore, Q(y) is true…. From the viewpoint of formal mathematical logic, each of these English statements is logically equivalent to the mathematical sentence P(x) \wedge Q(y). However, each of the above English statements also provides additional useful and informative cues for the reader regarding the relative importance, non-triviality, and causal relationship of the component statements P(x) and Q(y), or of the component symbols P, x, Q, and y. For instance, in some of these sentences P(x) and Q(y) are given equal importance (being complementary or somehow in opposition to each other), whereas in others P(x) is only an auxiliary statement whose only purpose is to derive Q(y) (or vice versa), and in yet others, P(x) and Q(y) are deemed to be analogous, even if one is not formally deducible from the other. In some sentences, it is the objects x and y which are indicated to be the primary actors; in other sentences, it is the properties P and Q; and in yet other sentences, it is the combined statements P(x) and Q(y) which are the most central. Thus we see that English sentences can be considerably more expressive than their formal mathematical counterparts, while still retaining the precision and rigour that mathematical exposition demands. By using such humble English words as "also", "but", "since", etc., a sentence conveys not only its semantic content, but also how it is going to fit in with the rest of one’s argument (or in the wider theory of the subject), giving the reader more insight as to the overall structure of that argument. The paper may become slightly longer because of this, but this is a small price to pay for readability (which is not the same as brevity!) … Finally, there is one situation in which it does make sense to use the terse language of mathematical notation rather than a more leisurely English equivalent, and that is when you are performing a tedious and standard formal computation. In those cases, the reader should already know in general terms what is going to happen (especially if you flag the computation as being standard beforehand), and will only be distracted by superfluous explanation or digression. The situation in which Tao says it is appropriate to use mathematical notion is one that does not apply to Austrian economics, which does not involve formal computations. To the contrary, in Austrian theory, the praxeologist is trying to understand each step of the deductions from the action axiom. (See my “Praxeology and Mathematical Logic” for more details on this point.) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------