Richard Penner
SW Engineer, Amateur mathematician (contributed to metamath.org, oeis.org, ...), Legal Tourist (went to Honolulu in 2010 to watch the end of Sancho v. DOE).
From the links in that article, we learn that the figures 500 GL (est. in the 1960's, frequently quoted) / 562 GL (high tide, 1999-2004 survey) are associated with the whole drowned valley/estuary.
I have not found the original 2004 report.
———
Port Jackson, containing Sydney Harbour, is a drowned river valley and is considered a natural harbour. It is 19 km long with an area of 55 km².
One Sydney Harbour (Sydharb), (the amount of water in Sydney Harbour) is approximately 500 gigalitres or 200,000 Olympic size pools.
———
https://media.bom.gov.au/social/blog/39/when-dam-size-matters/
Sydney Harbour holds about 500 GL.
———
A five-year effort by the NSW Maritime Authority to measure the exact dimension of greater Sydney Harbour has revealed the estuary has nearly 80 kilometres more shoreline than anyone thought, 62,000 megalitres more water and is, on average, 1.6metres deeper.
The best estimate of the estuary's volume at high tide had been about 500,000 megalitres, but the authority now knows it is 562,000 megalitres.
Another source of confusion has been the definition of "Sydney Harbour". The estuary does not have one official name; instead, there are five formally defined parts, of which Sydney Harbour is one. All five together are sometimes called greater Sydney Harbour, while the combined parts of Sydney Harbour, North Harbour and Middle Harbour are collectively known as Port Jackson.
"Our definition of the harbour goes around every rock and every little nook and cranny," Mr Buttigieg said.
@enoent@ravenation.club @futzle@old.mermaid.town
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reply_guy
A plethora of social media sins:
- Annoying strangers
- Rude strangers
- Mansplaining posters
- Strangers intruding into an intended limited reach out to specific individuals
- Post necromancy
It is perhaps from "Stranger" → "guy" and social media's unrestricted reply which turns their replies into an uncomfortable experience as if by being approached by a stranger when trying to have a tête-à-tête or have a productive (so necessarily focused or limited) conversation.
Cantor's claim is that the infinity of the set real numbers, |ℝ|, is larger than the infinity of the set of counting numbers, |ℕ|. If Cantor is wrong, then there must be a function 𝑓:ℕ⟶ℝ such that the set of real numbers, ℝ, is exactly the same as the image of all natural numbers under function 𝑓, 𝑓(ℕ) = { 𝑓(1), 𝑓(2), 𝑓(3), ... }. If Cantor is right, then there is no such function, 𝑓 where 𝑓(ℕ) = ℝ.
Cantor's diagonal argument is, at its heart, a proof that a set of size 2^n is strictly larger than n, is true for all n when n is the size of a set, and this works for infinite sets. If n is 3, we have A = {1, 2, 3}, B={000, 001, 010, 011, 100, 101, 110, 111}, and if 𝑓(1) = 𝑎𝑏𝑐, 𝑓(2) =𝑟𝑠𝑡, 𝑓(3) = 𝑥𝑦𝑧, the symbol D = 𝑎𝑠𝑧 might or might not be in 𝑓(A), but D̅ = 𝑎̅𝑠̅𝑧̅ cannot be. We know 𝑓(1) ≠ D̅ since 𝑎 ≠ 𝑎̅; we know 𝑓(2) ≠ D̅ since 𝑠 ≠ 𝑠̅; we know 𝑓(3) ≠ D̅ since 𝑧 ≠ 𝑧̅, so we know 𝑓(A) failed to include all the elements of B. The diagonal argument is not a procedure or task to be carried out, but logical reasoning about operating 𝑓 on the whole of A at once, even when A is an infinite set, like ℕ.
ℕ and ℝ are already concrete. ℝ^ℕ, the set of all injective functions from ℕ into ℝ, is already concrete. So 𝑓 is an element of ℝ^ℕ and 𝑓(ℕ) ≠ ℝ, because none of the injective functions from ℕ into ℝ is also an surjective function from ℕ onto every element of ℝ. That's pretty much the definition of "larger."
Since D̅ differs from 𝑓(𝑛) at the 𝑛th position, D̅ cannot be an element of 𝑓(ℕ) because there is no 𝑛 such that 𝑓(𝑛) = D̅.
Effectively, Cantor's diagonal argument is the proposition that describes a concrete 𝑔:ℝ^ℕ⟶ℝ such that for all 𝑓 in ℝ^ℕ, 𝑔(𝑓) = D̅, is in ℝ but not in 𝑓(ℕ).
I should have been a restaurant critic. My opinions are objectively correct.
Me, misquoting Moxxie from Helluva Boss
New: The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust v. Capital One, N.A. (25-cv-21596) District Court, S.D. Florida https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69853458/the-donald-j-trump-revocable-trust-v-capital-one-na/
2013-2017 DOJ ran "Operation Choke Point" using informal pressure on banks to sever ties ("de-banking") with high-risk-for-fraud businesses like payday lenders, firearm dealers, and pornographic film producers.
2021/01/06 #Trump holds #Jan6 rally
2021/01/20 Trump leaves office
2021/03/08 #CapitalOne, a bank, sent notice that "hundreds of [his] bank accounts" would be closed on 2021/06/07 (some extensions granted) (Doc 1-1, PDF page 13)
2022/02/07 The Biden Administration's effort to similarly target banking access to cryptocurrency and digital assets ramps up. https://blockspace.media/insight/operation-chokepoint-2-0-a-complete-timeline/
2025/03/07 Trump sues in Florida State court claiming he knows this de-banking was for his political acts.
2025/04/07 Removed to Federal Court
2025/06/12 Doc 32 First Amended Complaint
2025/07/11 Doc 37 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
2026/03/23 Doc 54 — FAC dismissed
2026/07/17 Doc 82 Trump's Second Amended Complaint (redacting the reasons Capital One said they closed the accounts) but admitting bank could close account “at any time, for any or no reason and without notice.”
2026/07/31 Doc 91 — Motion to Dismiss SAC for Failure to State a Claim: "We already told you, your accounts were closed because you move money around like a common money launderer."
those documents [attached to SAC] and Plaintiffs’ own allegations make clear that Capital One closed Plaintiffs’ accounts for anti-money laundering (“AML”) reasons.
p. 1
Capital One’s decision to close Plaintiffs’ accounts only became public because of Plaintiffs’ own decision to pursue this litigation.
p. 3
