"Julio Huato" <[email protected]> wrote: > Analytically, we sometimes say things like these: Consider a set y denoting > society and consider a mapping f denoting a simpli fied, abstract process of > historical transformation of the set y to itself. Assume y to be continuous, > ordered, and > convex (i.e. any straight line joining two points in the set has all of its > points also > in the set). Therefore, by Brower's fixed point theorem, at least one fixed > point > will exist -- i.e. society is able to reproduce itself (and retain its > quality as the self > same society)."
> When we formulate things like these, what is it that we are truly doing? The first thing to note is that y is actually a function of time and should be denoted as y(t). IMHO, society is sufficiently complex in the real world that y(t) will never be identical for two different times. What we are doing is abstracting society y(t) to a simplified model (in our case to Marx's labor theory of value (LTV)). In the case of environmentalists they can abstract to the amount of pollutants and natural resources. -- Ron
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
