Optimizer

DrewFactor has some very informative posts early in this thread that I think explain very well where the parents are undoubtedly coming from, based on the various other things I have heard reported about it. I don't think they have anything more than what she describes to go on. Before we ask what the husband's motives and evidence are - and both are certainly open to question - shouldn't we determine that they are relevant? On a moral basis, should he be considered simply the owner of property (her body, given it's permanent loss of ability to reason)? Or is abiding by her wishes (if they can be reasonably established - which they probably can't) the overriding moral issue? We must establish what his moral obligations are before we can decide whether any conflict of interest is worth looking into. Let's not get sucked into the "soap opera" the media is making out of this, if we can help it. As far any the legal aspect, it sounds like the judicial system is all but decided. I can't speak for whether it worked as it should or not, but they pay lawyers and judges a lot of money to work that end of it out, and they're certainly more qualified to do it than I am!

I wouldn't say you're disagreeing with what Rational_One is saying. The point made there was that there is a mountain being made out of a molehill. This is not to say that there aren't significant issues involved, but - as you point out - that, for the most part, isn't what the fuss is being made about. I, too, am asking the question of why this case is all over the media, when similar situations are said to happen every day. Is it because the subject was once young and attractive, and they have pictures of her to show on TV? Is it because the soap opera of the husband's life makes for "good TV"? Does the Religious Right have some sort of influence? Actually, I'm a little disappointed that this hasn't being discussed in more depth here. I'm new to Objectivism, and would have expected that this would be the place to hear it. For example, I read about the subject of vegetarianism on an Objectivist site once. My interpretation was that it said that animals do not have rights because they do not reason. One poster suggested Terri had assumed a "pet" status, and another a status of "property" (practically the same thing) on similar reasoning, but it didn't seem to stimulate much discussion. Another question - of the morality of tax dollars forcibly taken from the public (if that's what's happening) to keep her alive - was only mentioned. Lastly, there's been a lack of distinction between what is moral vs. what is legal in this case. Surely any Objectivist doesn't think of those two as being the same thing! I'm struggling for a way to try to say this without sounding insulting or condescending, but it always comes out the same anyway: "You must be very young." Try not to take it the wrong way; you're way ahead of the general public. If by "won the day" you mean that they have succeeded in having their moment in the spotlight, you are certainly correct. But what I have noticed is that the judicial system - which apparently has at least some self-respect - readily understands that bowing to the media circus, the polls, and to the legislative and executive branch antics would abdicate any authority they currently possess. That trumps even their pervasive religionism. There's been no apparent effect on the legal outcome. But that's an excellent observation about the legal subjectivists. I inadvertantly caught some of VanSustern last night, and it was amusing. Hannity was reporting on location, and had a predictible religionist rant about the Judicial Branch making a "power grab", ignoring Congress (who he suddenly refers to with religious reverence). It was so obvious that VanSustern, who is a lawyer, was struggling with what to say. She knew that it was obvious that Congress was inappropriately meddling with the judicial system, but how to say that without making one of her network's stars look ridiculous?! You'll also notice that nobody talks about actually changing the law so that it's to their liking. They just want the judges to make moral judgements to their liking - instead of, say, making legal decisions?

It sounds like you don't mean to be philosophical, so the answer would be: "Yes, negative numbers are real numbers". "...a positive number that I am looking at upside down..." seems a bit clumsy in describing it, though. I would suggest a similar, but alternative, visualization - that real numbers have direction. Every (American) football fan, for example, recognizes that "positive yards" means "going forward" and "negative yards" means "going backwards". Going further with this, let's recognize that a complex number is essentially two-dimensional - it has both a real and imaginary component. In a more abstract treatment, they are actually treated as "ordered pairs", if I'm not mistaken. In practice, I think the radical symbol is always used to denote the positive square root. We can use the "positive (or negative) square root" if we want to define a function, so let's not get hung up about that sort of thing. Obviously, the negative square root is denoted by putting a negative out front, and the "+/-" is used when it is ambiguous. Aside from the basic i=sqrt(-1), I think it's unusual to apply the radical symbol to a complex number - probably either because of the problem we see with this paradox, or because of the two-dimensional nature involved (or perhaps these two are the same thing). The exponential form is probably used instead. After all, what does "positive square root" mean when you're talking about complex numbers? This is a good paradox - it really makes you think about the basics you thought you already knew.

Thanks. I figured I'd wait to register until I had time to put together an intro, but then I spotted this "math emergency"... To answer your question, I majored in Electrical Engineering, both as an undergrad & grad. I think it just comes out to the equivalent of the Law of Cosines. If you drop a line segment down from the diagonal of your parallelogram to the x-axis, you have a new side. From the Pythagorean Theorem, [90]^2 = [45+60*cos(x)]^2 + [60*sin(x)]^2 8100 = [45]^2 + 2*45*60*cos(x) + [60*cos(x)]^2 + [60*sin(x)]^2 8100 = 2025 + 5400*cos(x) + 3600*cos(x)^2 + 3600*sin(x)^2 6075 = 5400*cos(x) + 3600*[cos(x)^2 + sin(x)^2] 6075 = 5400*cos(x) + 3600 2475 = 5400*cos(x) cos(x) = 2475/5400 Divide top and bottom by 225, and cos(x) = 11/24. Somewhere inbetween the second and third lines is the Law of Cosines, using cos(180-x) = -cos(x). While we're at it, the equation for A simplifies a bit: [sin(50deg)+sin(30deg)*cos(50deg)/cos(30deg)]*A = 2000 lbs {[sin(50deg)*cos(30deg)+cos(50deg)*sin(30deg)]/cos(30deg)}*A = 2000 lbs [sin(50deg+30deg)/cos(30deg)]*A = 2000 lbs [sin(80deg)/cos(30deg)]*A = 2000 lbs so A = [cos(30deg)/sin(80deg)] * 2000 lbs There's probably a way to do it with the Law of Sines, considering how simple it comes out. Then B = [cos(50deg)/cos(30deg)]*A = [cos(50deg)/cos(30deg)]*[cos(30deg)/sin(80deg)]* 2000 lbs, or B = [cos(50deg)/sin(80deg)]* 2000 lbs I skipped pre-calc, myself, in High School, but good luck on your test! (No mysticism intended or endorsed by the term "luck", BTW ... ) The more successful Objectivists are at useful things, the safer a place the world becomes for Reason! But - hey - "no pressure"...

Well, math happens to be a huge interest in my life - I think it even contributed to my interest in Objectivism - so I'll take a crack at this! I didn't major in this branch of Engineering, and it's been a few years, but let's see what we can do... First, I got: acos(11/24) = 62.72deg (to two decimal places) for the first one. How am I doing so far? For the second one - the way I remember it, it's a matter of the forces summing to zero (unless you're in Japan or San Francisco and something REAL BAD is going down... ): -cos(50deg)*A + cos(30deg)*B = 0 (the components in the x-direction) sin(50deg)*A + sin(30deg)*B -2000 = 0 (the components in the y-direction) Then you just have to solve the two equations for A and B. Start with B = [cos(50deg)/cos(30deg)]*A directly from the 1st equation. Put this in the second equation, and you get: [sin(50deg)+sin(30deg)*cos(50deg)/cos(30deg)]*A = 2000 lbs So, to two decimal places, A = 1758.77 lbs. Use this result in the preceeding equation, and B = 1305.41 lbs. Of course, this assumes that the cables are the quintessential "rigid bodies". If they're real cables that actually FLEX, that comes out to some sort of hyperbolic trig function, and you've got a long day ahead of you. But this sounds like mechanics class - not calculus... Ain't Reason beautiful!?!