So, we went to Kathryn Albertson Park, to play football. But it was so hot, and there were so many geese mementos on the grass, that Francisco felt unhappy, and wanted to go home instead.

We are walking back to the car, when

“Wait. Is that a Dalek?” Francisco was ahead of me. He stopped, came back, and looked at where the camera and I were pointing.

“Yes. That’s a Dalek. And that’s the Doctor.”

The part that I wasn’t expecting was what happened next. He looked at Najuma and I, scared, and said:

“I want to get in the car. Let’s go home.” He started to go for the car, then he looked at me. Why are you not running, you fool?

“No, wait, let me take another picture.”

“No, no, let’s go. Let’s go…” There is a Dalek in the park coming for us, you people, what are you doing? Run! RUN!!

“Oh, it’s talking, what is it saying?”

What else, really? EX-TER-…

So, yeah. We got in the car and sped out of there and into safety.

“Is the Dalek following us, papi?”

“No, I don’t think it is.”

“Are we safe at home?”

“Sure we are. And anyway, let me tell you, I’ll protect you of any Dalek attacks we may suffer, ok?”

43.614000-116.202000

Advertisements

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

This entry was posted on Saturday, June 1st, 2013 at 1:42 pm and is filed under Life. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Let $C$ be the standard Cantor middle-third set. As a consequence of the Baire category theorem, there are numbers $r$ such that $C+r$ consists solely of irrational numbers, see here. What would be an explicit example of a number $r$ with this property? Short of an explicit example, are there any references addressing this question? A natural approach would […]

Suppose $M$ is an inner model (of $\mathsf{ZF}$) with the same reals as $V$, and let $A\subseteq \mathbb R$ be a set of reals in $M$. Suppose further that $A$ is determined in $M$. Under these assumptions, $A$ is also determined in $V$. The point is that since winning strategies are coded by reals, and any possible run of the game for $A$ is coded by a real, […]

Yes. This is obvious if there are no such cardinals. (I assume that the natural numbers of the universe of sets are the true natural numbers. Otherwise, the answer is no, and there is not much else to do.) Assume now that there are such cardinals, and that "large cardinal axiom" is something reasonable (so, provably in $\mathsf{ZFC}$, the relevant […]

Please send an email to mathrev@ams.org, explaining the issue. (This is our all-purpose email address; any mistakes you discover, not just regarding references, you can let us know there.) Give us some time, I promise we'll get to it. However, if it seems as if the request somehow fell through the cracks, you can always contact one of your friendly edit […]

The characterization mentioned by Mohammad in his answer really dates back to Lev Bukovský in the early 70s, and, as Ralf and Fabiana recognize in their note, has nothing to do with $L$ or with reals (in their note, they indicate that after proving their result, they realized they had essentially rediscovered Bukovský's theorem). See MR0332477 (48 #1080 […]

No, not even $\mathsf{DC}$ suffices for this. Here, $\mathsf{DC}$ is the axiom of dependent choice, which is strictly stronger than countable choice. For instance, it is a theorem of $\mathsf{ZF}$ that for any set $X$, the set $\mathcal{WO}(X)$ of subsets of $X$ that are well-orderable has size strictly larger than the size of $X$. This is a result of Tarski […]

I give an example (perhaps the best-known example) below, but let me first discuss equiconsistency rather than straight equivalence. Usually an equiconsistency is really the sort of result you are after anyway: You want to establish that certain statements in the universe where choice holds correspond to determinacy, which implies the failure of choice. The […]

The other answers have correctly identified the issue. Let me highlight the difficulty: it is relatively consistent with the axioms of set theory except for the axiom of choice that there are infinite sets which do not contain a copy of the natural numbers (that is, there are infinite sets $X$ such that there is no injection $f\!:\mathbb N\to X$). This means […]

This is $\aleph_\omega^{\aleph_0}$. First of all, this cardinal is an obvious upper bound. Second, if $A\subseteq\omega$ is infinite, $\prod_{i\in A}\aleph_i$ is clearly at least $\aleph_\omega$. The result follows, by splitting $\omega$ into countably many infinite sets. In general, the rules governing infinite products and exponentials are far from being w […]

If $\lambda$ and $\kappa$ are cardinals, $\lambda^\kappa$ represents the cardinality of the set of functions $f\!:A\to B$ where $A,B$ are fixed sets of cardinality $\kappa,\lambda$ respectively. (One needs to check this is independent of which specific sets $A,B$ we pick, of course.) At least for finite numbers, this is something you may have encountered in […]

I PLEDGED NOT TO EXTERMINATE TODAY!

Oh, how fantastic! And through Dalek Klaus’s twitter account, I found https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10151472718672638.1073741852.95835192637&type=3&l=6282565f58 (148 pictures of the adventure).

[…] last year. See also here and […]

[…] Maybe they are chasing me, see here. […]