User talk:Assume a=a

coi. Looks like fun. Maybe someday I'll know enough to play devil's advocate effectively, my friend. (/mischevious) With this username I have a bit to live up to, xu? Assume a!=a 17:05, 30 December 2007 (EST)

That's for sure. Going against the mainstream a bit, aren't you? assume a=a 17:10, 30 December 2007 (EST)

zo'e. Conformity is overrated, while skepticism is underrated. Just doing my part! Assume a!=a 17:48, 30 December 2007 (EST)

There's a difference between conformity and logic. If a!=a is true, then true!=true, which means that true=false, thus a!=a is false by virtue of being true. Therefore, we should assume a=a. 17:52, 30 December 2007 (EST)

I fail to understand how being false by virtue of being true is any prolem whatsoever. Assume a!=a 16:56, 4 January 2008 (EST)

It means that by definition, it's a false assumption; that is, unless you're using a different definition of assume, a, or !=. assume $a=a$ 17:00, 4 January 2008 (EST)

... So? Assume a!=a 20:31, 4 January 2008 (EST)

So why assume something you know has to be false? assume $a=a$ 20:38, 4 January 2008 (EST)

To find out what happens. ;) Assume a!=a 20:42, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Two words: Lioshi Blobbo happens. assume $a=a$ 20:43, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Not necessarily. Assume a!=a 20:53, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Assume a!=a, your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 20:44, 4 January 2008 (EST)

I'll be sure to start a newsletter then. How much are you willing to pay? (/hypocritical anarchist) Assume a!=a 20:53, 4 January 2008 (EST)

You should assume that I sent you a lot of money already. That would be not-true, hence true. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 21:40, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Sounds (un)reasonable enough; consider yourself subscribed. Already have an idea for an essay...^^' (/too lazy to log in)

Noes! But what about teh logic?! assume $a=a$ 20:45, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Randianism

Based on your userpage, I assume you're not, but A=A is a big part of the work of Ayn Rand. So pardon me for my confusion. Researcher 14:26, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Never even heard of that. No, my username is just a geeky joke about how the reflexive property (for all $a$, $a=a$) is an axiom and therefore isn't proven and must be assumed true. From the page you linked me to, this person doesn't sound like much of a communist anarchist, either. assume $a=a$ 14:32, 3 January 2008 (EST)

No, not at all. Researcher 14:38, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Eh

Isn't being a communist and anarchist impossible? How would the communism be installed if not by the state? Lyra § talk 21:46, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

see http://www.communism.org/#communism -- Elassint ^{Hi! ^_^} 22:48, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Finally back after long break... The term "communist", unfortunately, has become associated in many people's minds with state communism and Stalinism. However, I mean it in the original Marxist sense; Marx was actually quite libertarian in his ideas. One modern economic model that I find I very much agree with is participatory economics, which is a socialist economic theory that shows many traits of anarchist ideas. assume $a=a$ 10:14, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Communism will be installed by the undeterrable will of the people and the inexorable forces of history, comradess! --AKjeldsen^{Potential fundamentalist!} 11:16, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm glad you agree, but I think it's hardly inevitable. Capitalism seems to be quite strong despite the widespread social injustice and damage it promotes. assume $a=a$ 18:11, 17 June 2008 (EDT)