Changes

:: Order, you still haven't provided an alternative definition of a liberal quotient for a group.  The only sensible definition using a scale between 0 and infinity is the ratio of liberals to conservatives.  If you're giving me such grief over such an obvious and simple definition, then I hate to think how you would have objected to [[Lord Kelvin]]!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:43, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Order, you still haven't provided an alternative definition of a liberal quotient for a group.  The only sensible definition using a scale between 0 and infinity is the ratio of liberals to conservatives.  If you're giving me such grief over such an obvious and simple definition, then I hate to think how you would have objected to [[Lord Kelvin]]!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:43, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

You requirement that it has to map from zero to infinity is kind of arbitrary, because you can map any function over an infinite domain to the [zero,infinity] domain. Basic math.

You requirement that it has to map from zero to infinity is kind of arbitrary, because you can map any function over an infinite domain to the [zero,infinity] domain. Basic math. No need to invoke Lord Kelvin. Lol.

 

My alternative definition for populations is either:

My alternative definition for populations is either:

* '''Liberals/Population''', the obvious choice. Ranges from 0 to 1. Choose an suitable transformation, such as x-> tan(x*pi/2) if you want it to range over [zero,infinity].

* '''Liberals/Population''', the obvious choice. Ranges from 0 to 1. Choose an suitable transformation, such as x-> tan(x*pi/2) if you want it to range over [zero,infinity].