Within the philosophy of mathematics, most philosophers would reject a philosophy of mathematics that implies, for instance, that complex analysis should be jettisoned (in this case X could be science, mathematics, or mathematics-cum-science).
This result immediately implies, for instance, a quasi-sure version of the spatial ergodic theorem.
This contradicts common sense; it implies, for instance, that both a train moving at the speed of light and a light beam emitted from the train arrive at a point farther along the track at the same instant.
It implies, for instance, the following remarkable fact: Complementary Evidence (CompE) For any \ h, e, k\in \bL\) and any \(P\in \bP,\) \ e\) confirms \(h\) relative to \ k\) if and only if \(\neg e\) disconfirms \(h\) relative to \ k.\) The importance of (CompE) can be illustrated as follows.
It implies, for instance, that betel nuts and cigarettes are complementary if cross-price elasticities for betel nuts are negative.
If these Z-scores were obtained from driving data, this would imply, for instance, that most of the time a driver maintained a driving behavior without abrupt changes in speed or direction.
Practically this would imply, for instance, inhibiting the cleavage of apoE4 into toxic fragments or blocking apoE4's effects on amyloid beta (Aβ) oligomerization [ 2, 3].
This interpretation would imply, for instance, that admissions arrangements that resulted in a very popular school having 10% of ethnic minority children and a very unpopular school having 90% could be contested only if the children who did not get into the popular school had been denied access by reason of their racial group - that is, directly.
This implies that, for instance, individual (s^{g}_{2}) can apply for the tax offered to any other agent as long as she selects the same consumption than the latter.
