## [ Politics ] Open question: Can you ever vote for Trump after his scam?

[Politics] Open question: Can you ever vote for Trump after his scam?

## [ Politics ] Open question: Should a Liberal legally attack a Conservative?

The Conservatives deserve it.

## [ Rock and Pop ] Open question: What is your favorite pop song of the 80s?

What is your favorite song of the 80's?

## Tips for beginners. GSA question

Hi guys,

I am a beginner in GSA and I was wondering how to configure it to diversify my keywords. What I'm trying to achieve is:

20% – Main keyword
60% – Long tails
10% – nude URLs

and How can I connect this RankerX list to GSA?

Thank you in advance for any help!

## music theory – A maths / beauty question

I am an aspiring philosopher, not qualified in mathematics. There is one question that obsesses me for some time:

The musical melody is a structure composed of a series of two types of entities: sounds and pauses. Each tone has two properties: height and duration; each break has a property – the duration. According to these properties, they can be compared. The result of a comparison can be an identity or a difference.

Hypothesis: a combination of tones and pauses gives us a feeling of beauty, others do not. Suppose that beauty is proportional to the quantity and variety of identity relations contained in the melodic structure (1).

Question: How can we determine the quantity and variety of identity relationships in a given melodic structure if we know that there is:

1. identity relationships between individual sounds and breaks;
2. identity relations between relationships. (example: A and B are different in the same way (identical) as B and C, the duration of A is half the duration of B, just as (in the same way) the duration of C corresponds to half the duration of D, etc.) (2)
3. between groups of sounds (and pauses).

And a second question: by what method can we create structures that contain a maximum and a variety of identities?

(1) On the reasons for this assumption, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332382681_The_Reason_as_an_ability_for_identification_and_differentiation_updated
part 3.

(2) The structure must be observed projection time. If we play the tones and pauses of a beautiful melody in a random temporal order, the beauty will be lost. These types of relationships allow us that.

## [ Politics ] Open Question: Hi Liberals, do you remember when Hillary destroyed the assigned emails?

[Politics] Open Question: Hey Liberals, do you remember when Hillary destroyed the assignment emails?

## At.algebraic topology – Question on the proof of the local contractability of the CW complex

I am very new in algebraic topology. I am currently reading Hatcher and remain stuck at proposal A.4. which states that CW complexes are locally contractable.

assume $$x in X ^ m-X ^ {m-1}$$, I understand the procedure that for $$n> m$$, $$N _ { epsilon} ^ n (x)$$ the deformation retracts on $$N _ { epsilon} ^ {n-1} (x)$$ sliding outward along the radial segments of the cell $$e_ beta ^ n$$, during the $$t$$-interval $$(1/2 ^ n, 1/2 ^ {n-1})$$.

It's clear to me, for everyone $$n> m$$, there is a deformation retracts from $$N _ { epsilon} ^ n (x)$$ sure $$N _ { epsilon} ^ m (x)$$because shrinkage can be built by finely sticking many cards: for a period of time $$(0, 1/2 ^ n)$$ do nothing during the time interval $$(1/2 ^ n, 1/2 ^ {n-1})$$, $$N _ { epsilon} ^ n (x)$$ the deformation retracts on $$N _ { epsilon} ^ {n-1} (x)$$etc.

But what we really want, it's a continuous map $$N_ epsilon (x) times I rightarrow N_ epsilon ^ m (x)$$, I think the reasoning above can not apply because there is a large number of cards to stick.

So the question is how to prove that the map is really continuous? Or did I forget something about the book? Anyone could help? Thank you!

## [ Politics ] Open question: Do you sometimes feel frustrated with the Conservatives' diminishing ignorance and breathtaking stupidity?

Examples:

• "It's hearsay!"
No it is not. Hearing only exists in court.

• "There is no evidence!"
There is a mountain of evidence. Contards simply chooses to ignore it. That's their problem, not ours.

• "Innocent until proven otherwise!"
This means that we do not impose fines or imprisonment on people before the verdict of guilty. That does not mean we have to believe in their innocence.

• "But Clinton!"
Clinton was dismissed. Derp.

• "But Hillary!"
Hillary testified for 11 hours and the Republicans could ALWAYS charge her nothing. Trump would not last 11 minutes.