IJMC - The Fractal Theory of Canada
I think the only thing needed for this theory is a good proof. Of course,
I hate proofs...I prefer derivations. In many cases they may be the same,
but to me there's a difference in how they're laid out and described. Now
you might be asking why I care about either since finals are over and the
semester is closed. Well, let's just say I don't want to go down the same
road fall semester that I travelled this past spring sememster. -dave
Given a community A and an adjacent community C, such that A is prosperous
and populous, and C is less populous and prosperous, and nonreciprocal
interest of C in the internal affairs of A, often C will need ego
compensation by occaisional noisy and noisome display of its superiority
over A. In this case C is said to be the _canada_ of A, C = canada(A).
For example, it has been previously established that
canada(California) = Oregon
canada(New York) = New Hampshire
canada(Australia) = New Zealand
canada(England) = Scotland
The Fractal Theory of Canada.
For all A there exists C such that
C = canada(A)
canada(USA) = Canada
canada(Canada) = Quebec
canada(Quebec) = Celine Dion
It would appear that the hierarchy would bottom out an individual. However
an individual is actually a community of tissues, tissues of cells, cells
of molecules, and so forth down into the quantuum froth.
canada(brain) = pineal gland
canada(intestines) = colon
canada(electron) = neutrino
and so on. There is no bottom.
"My God! It's full of Canadas!"