IJMC The Fractal Theory of Canada

                  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)

For example,
        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!"

IJMC May 1999 Archives