Back to 1939

While everybody was watching the situation around Ukraine, Russia effectively annexed Belarus.

(no subject)

Before I forget,

s: P -> D;
t: P -> D;
j: P -> D;
a1: P -> C;
a2; D -> C.

F: C -> Ω (quantity type functor).

C can be thought of as J2BD.

In a simplest case, P = D; therefore, the model collapses to P -> C and becomes a choice problem wrt f: X -> P, wherein X -> C and P -> C are given.

(no subject)

I wonder if this is the origin of the Sleeping Beauty story:

The Emir Musa marvelled at her exceeding beauty and was confounded at the blackness of her hair and the redness of her cheeks, which made the beholder deem her alive and not dead, and said to her, “Peace be with thee, O damsel!”

But Talib ibn Sahl said to him, “Allah preserve thee, O Emir, verily this damsel is dead and there is no life in her; so how shall she return thy salam?”; adding, “Indeed, she is but a corpse embalmed with exceeding art; her eyes were taken out after her death and quicksilver set under them, after which they were restored to their sockets. Wherefore they glisten and when the air moveth the lashes, she seemeth to wink and it appeareth to the beholder as though she looked at him, for all she is dead.”

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/54525/54525-h/54525-h.htm#c83
The Thousand Nights and a Night, translated by R. Burton. Vol 6. (the 576th night).

(no subject)

Let's say, there are two competing experts talking to a jury in a civil case (preponderance of evidence, rather than reasonable doubt). The experts take turns, trying to convince the majority of the jury whether a certain party is innocent or guilty. To win the case, should an expert strategically withhold certain information from the jury during this process of communication? Obviously, not. Because every time she does it, the opposing expert undermines her credibility, e.g. by pointing out to the jury that certain information has been strategically withheld. Since the jury does not have the expertise to judge the matter on its merits, the case is lost once the credibility is gone among even a small subset of the jurors. Furthermore, in a criminal case this strategy would be a complete non-starter because all it takes to lose an argument is to have just one juror decide against it.

Maybe that's why prosecutors partition their cases by charges, rather than strategically withholding information from the jury.

re: _