I Wouldn't Mind the Rich Getting Richer, IF it Cleans Up the Culture

I really don't blame people for voting for either party, as I've stated before.  Problem is neither party has a culture cleaning agenda.  Perhaps they're in cahoots.  Wouldn't surprise me.  They both agree beforehand that one party supports this unreasonable stance, and another party supports that unreasonable stance, just to keep things divided so that no other contenders show up.  Who knows.  What's sad though is both seem totally okay with horrendous language dominating every media form there is.  It also seems clear that one of them contains a small but quite vocal subset that is clearly against concepts like monogamy and other similar wholesome ideals, just because they're traditional.  

Bearing this in mind, I'd probably be willing to take a substantial financial hit and give a chunk of my money to people richer than me if it defeats certain agendas for good.  Agendas that promote ideas labeling any type of challenge or inconvenience as automatically oppressive, that consider self esteem more important than self control and self respect, that consider whims equivalent to duties, that attempt to discredit merit as a requirement for authority, that purposefully hide painful but necessary truths from young men rather than risk their psychological discomfort, etc.  These ideas have poisoned the minds of an untold number of kids on the internet, whose K through 12 educational abilities have been thoroughly postponed and perhaps permanently damaged as a result of their lack of disciplined pursuit to worthwhile living.  

Whether this sad outcome is worse than rich people manipulating the laws and marketplace to fatten their own pockets even further, I am not sure.  It gets even more complicated when this awful behavior of the wealthy leads to long hours for employees without even the comfort of being able to pay their AC bill.  But when I watch Judge Judy and see grown men spending their money on GoPros instead of rent, I get a little less sympathetic.  

The Only Accounting Journal Entry I Need To Remember

I don't have a very good memory, so for most things I like to remember as little as possible and derive everything else from that small bit.  That's what I do with journal entries in accounting.  I actually only remember one journal entry most of the time, and that is when an expense is recorded.  As long as I remember to debit the expense and credit cash, I'm good.  Then I can derive most other journal entry procedures from there pretty much.  

For instance, from there I can remember to record a sale by debiting cash and crediting revenue.  And I can remember to record a receivable by debiting AR and crediting revenue.  And to debit the receiving bank account and credit AR when the customer pays.  And to record a payable by debiting the expense and crediting AP.  And with an asset purchase, I debit the asset and credit cash or credit a payable.  And so on, and so on.

Seems way easier doing things this way than to memorize each particular type of entry individually.  Even if it may take a bit longer to get to the kind of entry I'm looking for at the moment.

Why I Don't Use Profanity

I very rarely use profanity.  Mostly because it's one of the easier commandments to obey.  LOTS easier than turning the other cheek.  If I can't obey the harder commands, at least I can obey the easier ones.

The Insane Math Behind Near-Integers

I think one time I got curious about that crazy looking infinite series that Ramanujan sent Hardy out of the blue to initiate their collaboration, and other than it being so complicated in appearance, I wondered what as so special about it.  So I began using AI to investigate because I'm lazy and also because I didn't feel like driving up to the UHCL library and paying the parking fees.  I found out the series converges very quickly, and this is the driving idea behind near integers.  If a series converges to an integer quickly, the first term should be pretty close to an integer.

There are probably a few ways to get fast convergence to an integer, but what this kind of math uses is something called the j-invariant.  Every complex plane lattice has a j-invariant number, and this invariant is unique to the lattice shape.  So if you scale or rotate the lattice it doesn't change the j-invariant.  This j-invariant number can be represented as an infinite series, which I am not sure at this moment how it's computed or derived.  I believe the work of Jacobi was used to relate all of the values of the lattice into a unit disk somehow, and that's how the series appears and converges quickly.  And there are special instances where this j-invariant is guaranteed to converge to an integer.  

Now the j-invariant involves a tau value determined by the lattice's periodic values, and that tau value determines the lattice shape.  And when you can get this lattice to map to itself, it's a very special scenario.  It's called complex multiplication.  And I get really fuzzy here because a lot of stuff seems to happen at once and I have no idea what order to describe it in.  As if I weren't already fuzzy on the subject to begin with.  I could be getting a lot of stuff wrong.  But, as I understand it, now we're dealing with lattices in the complex plane, and unlike real numbers complex numbers may or may NOT have unique factorization.  But a clever way was invented so there could be a kind of unique factorization with these things, and that's why something called ideals were invented.  Ideals always factor uniquely, even with complex numbers.  

But from what the imperfect but seemingly well-meaning AI interfaces tell me, each lattice IS an ideal.  And the lattice represented by a tau value for a j-invariant is going to factor since it's an ideal.  The values of the lattice factor into multiple factorizations, and each of those factorizations can form its own lattice.  

Now here's where the complex multiplication self-mappings get really interesting and get to the heart of the whole set-up of tying unique factorizations to exact integer values, which makes the whole near-integer stuff work.  When an ideal maps to itself, it means the mapping operator can at most permute the factors among themselves.  And this puts it into Galois permutation territory.  With this Galois permutation stuff, the sums and products of the factors are going to be whole numbers.  Not sure why this is, like I should be, but I believe that's the case.  So if you only have only one factor as in unique factorization, the sum and product of all factors is going to be whole, which means your j-invariant is going to be a whole number.

So that's what relates unique factorization to exact integers, and what helps us get an integer j-invariant with a near-integer first term in the fast-converging series.  

I was hoping to do a better rough sketch of an explanation, because I'm not exactly super happy with this one, but I think it's probably the best I can do for now.  Hopefully I can do some edits here and there later, and get a better idea of what ideals are.

Moral Nihilism is a Garbage Philosophy

In the past I have attacked moral relativism as contradictory, but I could not accuse moral nihilism of that.  Still can't.  But that doesn't mean I can't call moral nihilism a garbage philosophy, even if it's logically consistent.  I also feel comfortable claiming it's a philosophy from the devil himself.  If these sound like ad hominem attacks, that's because they actually are ad hominem attacks.  But moral nihilism is so weak, it can't even argue that ad hominem attacks possess any less moral worth than actual solid arguments.  That's pathetic.

A fulfilling life requires two things.  It requires a meaningful path to pursue, and it requires the courage to actually take that meaningful path.  Moral nihilism removes both of these things, calling them not worth the effort, and equating them to stagnation.  It removes the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness from the declaration of independence and equates them to death, enslavement, and the helplessness of perpetual misery.  

What's sad is this philosophy attempts to mask itself into something honest, implying that since we can't know moral absolutes, it's best to pretend they don't exist.  As if this philosophy knows what the best of anything is.  Best isn't in its vocabulary, at least not in the rare event that its adherents are being consistent with what they claim to believe.  In this philosophy a lie is not in any way inferior to the truth, but how often do we hear moral nihilists say that?

Abandon moral nihilism and treat it as worthless.  After all, it declares itself to be so.  

Man Created the Integers - All Else is the Work of God

A mathematician named Kronecker once said, "God created the integers, all else is the work of man."  And it's hard for me to imagine how he said that.  He was obviously more advanced at mathematics than I will ever be.  But the properties and results that flow from just a few mathematical rules are just so mind-blowingly unexpected I don't see how one could have argued that they were intentionally created instead of discovered.  

It's very easy to create the concept of an integer, but no one in the world would have thought of the argument principle in complex analysis.  No one would have intentionally created the Basel problem to sum up to its result either.  These were unexpected discoveries that seemed to stem from nature itself.  

Kronecker was apparently something called a constructivist, and I believe most of mathematics has not taken this approach.

Was I Closer to God When I Sinned More?

When I was a young man in my early 20's, I couldn't shake the sin of adult websites, even after several years.  And as awful as that is, despite the rest of the world thinking it's fine, that enslavement did keep me in quite a bit of prayer.  At times I felt like the tax collector in the parable mentioned in Luke 18.  And now sometimes I wonder if I'm more like the pharisee in the parable, which of course isn't a good thing.  I still fall prone to anger and sloth and many other sins, sometimes perhaps worse than the sin I used to do, but I don't pray quite as much for forgiveness now, or even pray as often for any other reason.  I think I primarily pray now for guidance during life's upcoming challenges.

But even if I was closer to God then than I am now, I can't WILLINGLY go back to the sin that God delivered me from 16 or so years ago.  Biblically it would be like a dog returning to its vomit.  That's a path I can't knowingly justify.  It may still happen, but if it does I won't be happy about it and I believe I will be quite devastated.

It kind of reminds me though of my favorite episode of Star Trek The Next Generation, the one titled Tapestry.  Where Picard learns that the unflattering parts of your past are so engrained in your life story that you can't really unravel them, and even if you could it would lead to unexpected and potentially undesirable consequences.  I might have mentioned that episode in this blog before because I love it so much, even though I am not sure if the message is 100% true.

But if I ever need to be reminded of my continued sin, all I need to do is read about turning the other cheek regarding personal affronts.  That's a HARD verse to obey and I definitely know I'm guilty of not obeying it.