I originally had the impression the acts of Bush was willy-nilly - but you have convinced me I had it backwards; he is nil-willy.
I have become convinced that Bush is actually a field. It is obvious he has no ideals.
Let p be a prime number, G a finite group, and |G| the order of G.
1. If p divides |G|, then G has a Sylow p-subgroup.
2. In a finite group, all the Sylow p-subgroups are conjugate for some fixed p.
3. The number of Sylow p-subgroups for a fixed p is congruent to 1 (mod p).
Why is this terrifying?
Because of all the (under Bush's command) Missile Sylows!
And the Missile Sylows in Russia, aimed at us, under Putin, whom Bush is going out of his way to antagonize, albeit finally bringing Daddy George H. W. Bush in to (literally) defuse things at the family compund in Kennebunkport.
Geekiest. Political. Commentary. Ever.
Well, I think the American Public ought to be made aware of the fact that their President has commutation relations with improper sub-groups...
I originally had the impression the acts of Bush was willy-nilly - but you have convinced me I had it backwards; he is nil-willy.
I have become convinced that Bush is actually a field. It is obvious he has no ideals.
Let p be a prime number, G a finite group, and |G| the order of G.
1. If p divides |G|, then G has a Sylow p-subgroup.
2. In a finite group, all the Sylow p-subgroups are conjugate for some fixed p.
3. The number of Sylow p-subgroups for a fixed p is congruent to 1 (mod p).
Why is this terrifying?
Because of all the (under Bush's command) Missile Sylows!
And the Missile Sylows in Russia, aimed at us, under Putin, whom Bush is going out of his way to antagonize, albeit finally bringing Daddy George H. W. Bush in to (literally) defuse things at the family compund in Kennebunkport.
Geekiest. Political. Commentary. Ever.
Well, I think the American Public ought to be made aware of the fact that their President has commutation relations with improper sub-groups...
Of course it turns out Sean had got there first
Actually, Mobius, I think that means that he still can have ideals; it's just that they're trivial or improper.
I'm guessing that he's {0}, in which case his only ideal is himself.