“Dr” John Reid
In the tradition of the New Shorter Sharpener – snappy posts for a busy world – here is everything I want to say about the issue of labour mobility from Bulgaria and Romania in one equation.
Illiberal Home Secretary Pandering to Rabid Anti-Immigration Tabloid Gallery and Demonstrating Penchant to create New Criminal Offences + Romanian and Bulgarian Citizens who will be EU Citizens with formal right of entry and residence to the UK as of 1 January 2007 = Massive Increase in Black Economy + More People Sleeping Rough + Reduction in the Tax Take from Migrant Workforce for UK Treasury + Lots of People Thinking That It Is All The Fault of the Romanians and Bulgarians after all.
ÂÂ
So, the key question is… is the correct term for the above an “equation” or an “equivalence”? Mathematicians? Statisticians? Help.
“+ further overcrowding of a prison system already at breaking point”
“is the correct term for the above an “equation†or an “equivalenceâ€Â?”
Bugger didn´t think of that.
Personally I think this is an equation, if you look at definitions and equivalence is simply another term for biconditional which ist a relation meaning “if and only if” between two propositions, that ether have to be both true or both false…
“Illiberal Home Secretary”
There’s some other kind?
From a mathematicians perspective, anything of the form “a=b” is an equation, including this. I’m not sure what I’d understand by an “equivalence” – Bondbloke defines what it means for two propositions to be logically equivalent i.e one is true if and only if the other is true. There’s also a thing called an “equivalence relation” which is a way of saying two things are the same in some particular respect. For instance the relation on whole numbers “a is equivalent to b if either they’re both odd or they’re both even” is an equivalence relation.
Perhaps a statistician would have a different take on it.
Come on, now, doesn’t anyone want to discuss the content?
Liadnan’s said what I was going to say, although he’s skipped the intermediate stage of the £1,000 fine. I can just see some junior Home Office bureaucrat somewhere preparing scenarios for revenue from fines vs cost of inspectors, cost of imprisonment and loss of tax and NI: “assume 10,000 illegals, we slap a £1,000 fine on 20% of them, out of those 2,000 let’s say that 50% are actually able to pay…” – and repeat with different assumptions until the figures look good.
Ugh. Good day at work, dear?
I would discuss the content but my calculator’s bust.
I’m disappointed that I haven’t seen a single news piece quoting some Poles who are worried about Romanians coming over here and stealing their jobs.
Not that I think it’s a valid argument, you understand. I just think it’d be funny.
“I’m disappointed that I haven’t seen a single news piece quoting some Poles who are worried about Romanians coming over here and stealing their jobs.” I saw a funny little snippet in a cartoon to that effect after Ratzinger became pope. There was a strapline that read “Deutscher nimmt Polenjob”. The biter bit.
I am almost totally innumerate so the maths of it is beyond me. Still, the logic of it is non existent. A Latvian friend tells me that she slept rough for a time, and that 18 Latvians shared a house. She did work for awhile, but was unable to remain employed for 12 months, therefore does not satisfy the habitual residence test and right to reside test. No jobseekers allowance, no housing or council tax benefit. Debts, debts and more debts. She finds work on the black market…
I should have added, to be strictly correct, “at least short term” right of entry and residence. Perhaps it would be better as a vicious circle rather than equation or an identity or an equivalence or whatever. Sadly, am not sure the virtuous circle would operate in the opposite direction with access to the labour market but minus the welfare state safety net. Incidentally, no one ever mentions is but I am 99% sure that the UK`s transitional arrangements in relation to access to welfare benefits is almost certainly contrary to EU law. To my knowledge no one has challenged it yet, but it would be interesting to see if they did. Now that really would get a certain constituency foaming at the mouth.
An equivalence in mathematics usually means an equivalence relation, which is a rule R satisfying, for all x, y and z varying over, well, whatever you want it to:
xRx
if xRy then yRx
if xRy and yRz then xRz
So logical equivalence (“if and only if” essentially) is an equivalence, as is equality (“=” in the usual sense).
I think the thing in the prose is supposed to be an equation, but really given the context equivalence will do, as equality is a metaphor for what the guy is saying.
Pingback: Robert Sharp » Blog Archive » Brevity
Pingback: Chicken Yoghurt » On the spot’s hot
Pingback: Summary justice in Walford « Not Saussure
“Come on, now, doesn’t anyone want to discuss the content?”
What content?
I forgot, I shouldn’t do irony on blogs…