IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.
You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.
- I don't know what a 'unitary rotation operator on amplitude space' is Paul: Just as well, that was a mistake, debt cancellation is not unitary in amplitude space. The idea of amplitude space is one that I presented in my seminar. But there are still some mathematical bugs in that presentation. I spotted them this afternoon working through it. --------------- - Exchange is a value conserving process. Yes, but surplus value occurs through, inter alia, exchange! Oh dear, here is a contradiction. So I can 'match' the difficulty of your 'unitary rotation operator' with the blatant, yet true (dialectical), contradiction that surplus value must occur both within and without the sphere of exchange. ---------------------- Why? Surplus value is just the necessary expression of there being a net product outside of exchange.
- Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?, (continued)
- Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?, Paul Cockshott Thu 21 Apr 2005, 09:30 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?, Andrew Brown Thu 21 Apr 2005, 17:32 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?, Paul Cockshott Fri 22 Apr 2005, 10:03 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?, Andrew Brown Fri 22 Apr 2005, 12:48 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?, Paul Cockshott Fri 22 Apr 2005, 14:55 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?, Paul Cockshott Fri 22 Apr 2005, 15:25 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?, glevy Fri 22 Apr 2005, 15:39 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?, Ian Wright Fri 22 Apr 2005, 17:58 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?, Paul Cockshott Fri 22 Apr 2005, 15:45 GMT