you can model the tax on the supply or the demand. in most simple models the outcome is the same

technically yes, but the proof would usually show that this works by constructing the bijection of [0,1] and (0,1) and then you’d say the cardinalities are the same by the Schröder-Berstein theorem, because the proof of the latter is likely not something you want to demonstrate every day

even if that’s not how you can write it, one gets the same issue in yours subtracting infinity from both sides

it’s actually Vulcan

ah, but don’t forget to prove that the cardinality of [0,1] is that same as that of (0,1) on the way!

no, there aren’t enough integers to map onto the interval (0,1).

probably the most famous proof for this is Cantor’s diagonalisation argument. though as it usually shows how the cardinality of the naturals is small than this interval, you’ll also need to prove that the cardinality of the integers is the same as that of the naturals too (which is usually seen when you go about constructing the set of integers to begin with)

actually you can for each real number you can exhaustively map a uninque number from the interval (0,1) onto it. (there are many such examples, you can find one way by playing around with the function tanx)

this means these two sets are of the same size by the mathematical definition of cardinality :)

actually that’s written with stone

don’t forget ablutophobia

and that’s why you can see that once the person has gone to school they protest (in the next panel)

you then can see in the panel after they protest that they become the parent, telling their child to go to school. presumably because they forgot what they learned at school (or because they think school is the best way for children to learn about these things - which seems a little less likely)

every dollar you raise, the fewer customers you get. the point is that you should want to raise the price whenever the relative drop in customers is less than the relative increase in price to maximise profits (where marginal cost is marginal benefit :) )

some injustices are structural

actually history is just our collective understanding of the past, so if it changes, history changes

Right, and this Walmart in Europe would be where exactly?

that’s just a fancy way of saying:

imagine you have two children and live in a system of gavelkind succession. now consider the share of one of the children. then forget the children and make that share the new bank balance

right, except sometimes it’s easier to impose conditions on certain countries than others. for example the US was able to get the previous Indian administration to sign a treaty ceding partial control of their arsenal to them, on threat of sanctions (if I recall correctly). as much as the US might want to do something like that with China, it wouldn’t be anywhere near as easy to pull off.

this is just an example, I’m not attaching moral value to what occurred/occurs

you don’t need to say yes if someone asks you?

can’t you just buy a cheaper USB 3.0 speed cable anyway? or is this a hardware limitation that Apple have put in the port of the phone?

isn’t this supposed to be mitigated by the fact that the tritium eventually blends into the larger ocean such that the concentration remains in harmless levels at the end anyway?

look at mr big spoon here