confusion (n.)

C. 1300, confusion, "overthrow, ruin", old confusion from mixed from "chaos, confusion, shame" (11c.) And direct Latin confusion (confusion), mixed, confusion, chaos ", from the behavior noun of the past Confusing the participle and "discarding together" and "confused" (see confusion)

It means "an act of mixing more than two things and concepts" since the mid-14th century. The sense of "humiliation, confusion" (spiritual "falling") comes from c. English 1400, and "state of mental confusion, ambiguous thought" began in the 1590s. It means "mixed state", literally or figuratively, "mixed chaos" is from the end of 14 c

The set of all congruent classes of integers with the factor n is called modulo n integer rings and is represented by or. However, this notation is not recommended, as it may be confused with a set of n-ary integers. The ring is the basis of various mathematical branches (see application below). The integer loop of modulo n is a finite field only if n is a prime number (This guarantees that each nonzero element has a multiplicative inverse matrix). If it is a prime number with k> 1, there is a unique (unequally isomorphic) finite field with n elements, but this is not because the divisor is zero and can not be a body

P3. However, for each N, it is always an open question whether X with N attribute is valid or not. This is a meaningful question, not a conceptual confusion. P4. For all N, "N" is not synonymous with "good" if it is an unresolved question whether X with attribute N is always valid. Various Yuanlun theories such as non-cognitive, intuitive and anti-reality theory. It occupies an important position in almost all textbooks on meta ethics. However, in the current general view, this argument does not promote naturalism. First of all, it defines conceptual or semantic naturalism (defining "good" in "nature") and metaphysical naturalism (analyzed as a natural type as "water" is analyzed as H 2 O) Not to distinguish completely

There seems to be nothing that can be used as general revolution theory. In addition, there is little accumulation of progressive ideas in theorists. The general theory of revolution still has confusion, difference between doubt and opinion. Even in the definition of a domain to explain, the basic terms of terminology and delimitation have not been resolved. The recent American revolutionary history studies (with some remarkable exceptions) focus on this. But the most distinguishing feature of the 200th anniversary ceremony is the lack of a new, new interpretation that explains the broader meaning of this historic event.