It can totally be written without "algebra"; it's not the notation that contains the idea, it's only the idea that happens to be often expressed in this notation. I could use any other notation, or even plain English, to express the idea, if I didn't mind the extra verbosity.
For Example:
1. The Berlin Papyrus 6619 (from 2000-1786 BC Egypt) uses prose [1]
2. The Ancient Chinese mathematical text Zhuobi Suanjing uses both prose and a pictorial notation [2]
3. The Baudhāyana Shulbasūtra (from 800-500 BC), a set of mathematical instructions for use in the construction of Vedic fire-altars, uses Sanskrit prose describing geometric constructions using rope [3] [4].
> The Berlin Papyrus 6619 (from 2000-1786 BC Egypt) uses prose
Just because it's prose doesn't mean it isn't algebra. For example "If you square the lengths of the two shorter sides together and add them up it equals the length of the square of the length of the longer side". That's just algebra with words.
The thing that makes algebra algebra is that you use variables, not constants. "the length of the longer side" is just a wordy variable.
Are there any countries that enforce copyright as much as the US do? I have no idea when a book legally enters public domain in Russia, since any book I can think of is a couple clicks away. Literally anything: Nabokov, Rowling, etc
Edit: come to think of it, it's pretty universal. Libgen and bookfi are not exactly Russian. There's probably little difference whether a book is public domain unless you want to make a movie.
> Most western countries are very similar in this regard.
I suspect the Venn diagram of countries with similar copyright terms, and countries with trade agreements requiring them to have similar copyright terms, would overlap almost 100%.
My grandmother would put it for a day in a hole, cut in a black radish, and then feed me a spoon every once in a while.
The modern hip way is to use lemons, honey and ginger to make a brew. After COVID broke out lemons and ginger in Moscow tripled in price at some point.
It is absolutely unacceptable, that's why 2/3 answers to this comment so far use martial metaphors. It violates not the liberty of young men, who have every right to be reckless and volunteer, but integrity of the scientific community.
If the Oxford researchers made trials on Syrian kids in a refugee camp, in exchange for $100, I suppose more people would see a problem here.
I'd be willing to do it. It could save thousands or lives. Which part to you object to? Enthusiastic volunteers being able to choose to take a risk? The world has become far too nanny state and arse covering in my opinion.
I find the attitude puzzling that people are willing to value vague abstractions like "integrity of the community" over thousands of lives.
I agree with everything you say. If a rogue MD in a nanny state will talk you into a challenge trial, - by all means, let him do it and face the consequences (hopefully, tough).
But let's not pretend, that it would be an informed consent.
The reason for the vaccine research protocol we're settled on, is the ubiquity of wanna-be Pasteurs, and dearth of the real ones.
On a separate note. We have deprived ourselves of basic human rights under the premise, that lives are worth any economic outcome of shut down. Where I live, premeditated spreading of the Covid is considered by law an act of terrorism. Officially vetted challenge trials just don't add up.
Well, kids over 18 can give consent. And no one can give an informed consent to a challenge trial at this point.
If you and I stole the vaccine, injected it, and would try to get infected, as an amateur scientific endeavor, it would be perfectly ok. If an MD would inform us, that she "feels optimistic", in order to get a consent, she has no business being a researcher.
It's going to harm the integrity of the scientific community a lot more once the world starts counting up the lives human challenge trials could have saved.
Religious practice was certainly illegal, unless it was official Orthodox, Muslim, Jewish etc. There was no way to organize a non-canonical congregation, unless it was a clandestine operation for a dozen people.
There was an article in the RSFSR Felony codex ("breaking the laws of separation of the church from the state, and of the school from the church", #142) the sole purpose of which was to outlaw religious congregations.
Many baptists (mostly Ukrainian) were imprisoned indefinitely - well into eighties - for refusing to obtain passports.
Finally the idea of "legality" of something for which you get persecuted and mocked by state and party officials (as part of their line of duty), and get auto-fired from a significant part of the economy in a state with no (legal) private economy seems a little twisted.
