is a mistake soluble?

how does a mistake occur?
and if and when how does one correct it?

take a diaphora the meaning:

Quote:

---

1. the act or an instance of repeating; reiteration

2. a thing, word, action, etc., that is repeated

3. a replica or copy

4. (Law) Civil and Scots law the recovery or repayment of money paid or received by mistake, as when the same bill has been paid twice

---

in law a mistake payment is supposed to be paid back.
if it is a mistake then the law recourse to it without making it the receiver's mistake?

by paying twice the law has mistaken.
but paying it back the receiver is made responsibly mistaken. paying back is action that stresses he or she has mistaken without being involved at the first place.

should the law by order of logic pay again the same amount without making the first mistake of paying twice to show it has not made that mistake again.
in other words the law should compensate the receiver by paying again but only once this time to admit it has made a mistake has corrected itself by paying only once?

Is a mistake soluble? Pop it in a glass of water and find out!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta40

Is a mistake soluble? Pop it in a glass of water and find out!

---

LOL I would like to but how to hold of it is the question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta40

Is a mistake soluble? Pop it in a glass of water and find out!

---

Only at room temperature, though.

Is soluble solvable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by free

Is soluble solvable?

---

Only if you place it in a solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by free

Is soluble solvable?

---

not necessarily. just because it goes away it does not mean it is not coming back.

No one has tried to answer cacian's question, which I think was an interesting legal question about reimbursement for mistaken (in his case, extra) payment.

As regards "soluble" and "solvable," both of these words, and indeed other related ones, share the same origin. "Solution," for example, refers to things, like solids that are "dissolved" into a liquid "solvent." It also refers to a problem (something hard and solid) whose difficulty is made to "melt away" (dissolve) by an effort of mind. Both solids and problems my be "soluble" or "solvable" and I understand that current usage tends to favor the chemical meaning for "soluble" and the philosophical meaning for "solvable." And I did appreciate the humor in the responders who tasked cacian for his "non-standard" usage. Though non-standard, his usage is etymologically acceptable to me.

So why not try to answer his question?

Cacian asked: should the law by order of logic pay again the same amount without making the first mistake of paying twice to show it has not made that mistake again.
in other words the law should compensate the receiver by paying again but only once this time to admit it has made a mistake has corrected itself by paying only once?

I'm not sure I understand cacian's syntax or what he means by "the receiver," but I think the answer to his question is that someone who has made an erroneous double payment should be paid back the "extra" amount he paid. That would be only fair and just. There is a question of just who is responsible for the "mistake" of a double payment, i.e., the party owed the payment or the party making the payment. Did the "payee" mistakenly bill twice? Or was the payee being dishonest and somehow hoping to get more than he was owed by the payer? If so, the payee made a "mistake" or worse. Did the payer for some reason decide to pay twice what he actually owed? Then the payer made a mistake. But why would a payee make such a (costly to him) mistake? Maybe he is forgetful, doesn't care about money, or is otherwise foolish. In modern society, billing for goods and services tends to be "automated." In the "old days" folks bought things with cash at the point of purchase, and it would be extremely difficult for a purchaser to be unaware of paying twice for the same purchase. Nowadays, with credit cards, internet and loan purchases, etc., it is quite possible for purchasers to be double-billed for their purchases, and even to be billed for things they did not purchase.

In any case, it seems that the law should protect both sellers and buyers. A person who sells something to a buyer should expect to be paid what he is owed. A buyer should expect to receive from a seller what he purchases for the agreed-upon sum. Nothing more and nothing less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by free

Is soluble solvable?

---

Nope, but it has a similar meaning.

Here's another use of it in a similar context; as is often the case, I tend to hear something used soon
after I learn a new word or a new meaning for a word:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martin Luther King, Jr

Unlike plagues of the dark ages or contemporary diseases we do not yet understand, the modern plague of overpopulation is soluble by means we have discovered and with resources we possess. What is lacking is not sufficient knowledge of the solution but universal consciousness of the gravity of the problem and education of the billions who are its victims.

---

It happened to be on one of the most important issues in our day. :)

No, it forms a precipitate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oedipus

No, it forms a precipitate

---

do you mean a precipite?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

Nope, but it has a similar meaning.

Here's another use of it in a similar context; as is often the case, I tend to hear something used soon
after I learn a new word or a new meaning for a word:



It happened to be on one of the most important issues in our day. :)

---

overpopulation? there is no such a thing and never will. it is not possible to overpopulate unless one is suggesting squeazing in on island and hoping to settle a colonie. nature always outstand man. imagine the worse could happen before any overpopulation could take place. nature has its ways in the same way that man has.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

overpopulation? there is no such a thing and never will. it is not possible to overpopulate unless one is suggesting squeazing in on island and hoping to settle a colonie. nature always outstand man. imagine the worse could happen before any overpopulation could take place. nature has its ways in the same way that man has.

---

Overpopulation of humans is the single most pressing concern for our species, and the whole planet. It's extremely important to our survival that we realize the danger before it is truly irreversible.

This little globe is our island, cacian, and we are indeed squeezing too many onto it. I know are an intelligent person and I urge you to do some research on this subject.

I'm sorry that I just noticed this.

Overpopulation is a major problem, and it can be cured. The trouble caused by excess population has become worse and worse as the world's population climbed higher and higher. Modern medicine might have seemed like a good idea in the past, but it has become clear hat that is the root of the problem.

Oh for a breakout of some deadly plague that sweeps through the world by storm...

Is there a problem? In the last 50 years the average fertility rate has fallen from five to 2.5 - and it's still falling. The amount of children in the world today is the most there will be. We are now in the age of Peak Child!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24835822

As long as there is a net increase in population, the problem persists. The decline in Western birth-rates is not happening in the third world

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oedipus

As long as there is a net increase in population, the problem persists. The decline in Western birth-rates is not happening in the third world

---

The decline in Western birth-rates *is* happening in the third world. Did you bother to dig down into the link I gave you? Have you any facts to back up your statement, or are you just making things up? Here's a nice TV documentary on the subject, if you really want to learn the facts:

http://www.gapminder.org/videos/dont...ut-population/

TV documentaries have always been useless; sensationalistic and guilty of lies of omissions at best and openly perfidious and mendacious at worst/

The UN: http://www.un.org/esa/population/pub...p2300final.pdf

They predict peak in the 2070s

In these projections, world population peaks at
9.22 billion in 2075. Population therefore grows
slightly beyond the level of 8.92 billion projected
for 2050 in the 2002 Revision, on which these projections
are based.

World population is projected to grow from 6.1
billion in 2000 to 8.9 billion in 2050, increasing
therefore by 47 per cent. The average annual
population growth rate over this half-century will
be 0.77 per cent, substantially lower than the 1.76
per cent average growth rate from 1950 to 2000.
In addition, growth is projected to slow the further
the projections go. For 2000-2005, the annual
growth rate is estimated at 1.22 per cent; by 2045-
2050, it will be only 0.33 per cent.
Although growth rates will fall, the annual increase
in world population will remain large: 57
million a year on average between 2000 and 2050.
This is smaller than the 71 million people added
annually between 1950 and 2000 but still substantial.
It means that, on average each year for 50
years, world population will expand by about as
many people as now live in Italy. The increase,
over 50 years, will be more than twice the current
population of China, or more than twice the current
population of all more developed regions
combined. Although population growth will eventually
subside, and a variety of countries will see
little or no population growth, for the world as a
whole the next 50 years can hardly be characterized
as demographically tranquil.

As for your link, I distrust someone who claims that with five facts "everyone can upgrade their world view"

You do seem to right about birth rates in the third world generally; however it does not counteract growth entirely. The ratios of African and Asians to Europeans and North Americans will change to the favour of the former two, as one result of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta40

Oh for a breakout of some deadly plague that sweeps through the world by storm...

---

:) I hope so.

why would growth rates slow down rather than speed up? there are more people reproducing, hence more people being reproduced. the only thing i see stopping growth is laws such as are in place in China...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

Overpopulation of humans is the single most pressing concern for our species, and the whole planet. It's extremely important to our survival that we realize the danger before it is truly irreversible.

This little globe is our island, cacian, and we are indeed squeezing too many onto it. I know are an intelligent person and I urge you to do some research on this subject.

---

Yeah, the problem is, what is the best course of action that minimizes the sacrifice of basic human rights?

Awareness of the danger is the main thing I believe, and awareness that it's not really okay or smart to have 14 children anymore; the times have changed and it's essential we stop before we have no chance of stopping.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

Only at room temperature, though.

---

:)..................:thumbs_up