OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Economic Sophisms/113

<pagequality level="3" user="Zoeannl" />style="background: #ececec; text-align: left; padding-left: 0.5em; font-weight: bold;" class="table-rh"
A sophism sometimes expands, and runs through the whole texture of a long and elaborate theory. More frequently, it shrinks and contracts, assumes the guise of a principle, and lurks in a word or a phrase.
May God protect us from the devil and from metaphors! was the exclamation of Paul-Louis. And it is difficult to say which of them has done most mischief in this world of ours. The devil, you will say; for he has put the spirit of plunder into all our hearts. True, but he has left free the means of repressing abuses by the resistance of those who suffer from them. It is the sophism which paralyzes this resistance. The sword which malice puts into the hands of assailants would be powerless, did sophistry not break the buckler which should shield the party assailed. It was with reason, therefore, that Malebranche inscribed on the title-page of his work this sentence: L'erreur est la cause de la misère des hommes.
Let us see in what way this takes place. Ambitious men are often actuated by sinister and wicked intentions; their design, for example, may be to implant in the public mind the germ of international hatred. This fatal germ may develop itself, light up a general conflagration, arrest civilization, cause torrents of blood to be shed, and bring upon the country the most terrible of all scourges, invasion. At any rate, and apart from this, such sentiments of hatred lower us in the estimation of other nations, and force Frenchmen who retain any sense of justice to blush for their country. These are undoubtedly most serious evils; and to guard the public against the underhand practices of those who would expose the country to such hazard, it is only necessary to see clearly into their designs. How do they manage to conceal them? By the use of metaphors. They twist, distort, and pervert the meaning of three or four words, and the thing is done.
The word invasion itself is a good illustration of this.
A French ironmaster exclaims: Preserve us from the invasion of English iron. An English landowner exclaims in return: Preserve us from the invasion of French corn. And then they proceed to interpose barriers between the two countries. These barriers create isolation, isolation gives rise to hatred, hatred to war, war to invasion. What does it signify? cry the two sophists; is it not better to expose ourselves to an eventual invasion than accept an invasion which is certain? And the people believe them, and the barriers are kept up.
And yet what analogy is there between an exchange and an
# Economic Sophisms/107

<pagequality level="3" user="Zoeannl" />style="background: #ececec; text-align: left; padding-left: 0.5em; font-weight: bold;" class="table-rh"other things, corn, flour, meat, cattle, tallow, salt, iron, copper, lead, coal, wools, hides, seeds, etc.
If you will only prove to me that the value of these things is not due to labour, I will grant that it is useless to protect them.
But, on the other hand, if I demonstrate to you that there is as much labour worked up in a 100 fr. worth of wool as in a 100 fr. worth of textile fabrics, you will allow that the one is as worthy of protection as the other.
Now, why is this sack of wool worth 100 fr.? Is it not because that is its cost price? and what does its cost price represent, but the aggregate wages of all the labour, and profits of all the capital, which have contributed to the production of the commodity?
THE BORDEAUX PETITIONERS: Well, perhaps as regards wool you may be right. But take the case of a sack of corn, a bar of iron, a hundredweight of coals,—are these commodities produced by labour? Are they not created by nature?
M. de Saint-Cricq: Undoubtedly nature creates elements of of all these things, but it is labour which produces the value. I was wrong myself in saying that labour created material objects, and that vicious form of expression has led me into other errors. It does not belong to man to create, to make anything out of nothing, be he agriculturist or manufacturer; and if by production is meant creation, all our labour must be marked down as unproductive, and yours, as merchants, more unproductive than all others, excepting perhaps my own.
The agriculturist, then, cannot pretend to have created corn, but he has created value; I mean to say, he has, by his labour, and that of his servants, labourers, reapers, etc., transformed into corn substances which had no resemblance to it whatever. The miller who converts the corn into flour, the baker who converts the flour into bread, do the same thing.
In order that man may be enabled to clothe himself, a multitude of operations are necessary. Prior to all intervention of human labour, the true raw materials of cloth are the air, the water, the heat, the gases, the light, the salts, which enter into its composition. These are the raw materials upon which strictly
speaking, no human labour has been employed. They are
# Economic Sophisms/110

<pagequality level="3" user="Zoeannl" />style="background: #ececec; text-align: left; padding-left: 0.5em; font-weight: bold;" class="table-rh""The more abundant raw materials are," says the Bordeaux petition, "the more are manufactures promoted and multiplied."
"Raw materials," says the same document in another place, "open up an unlimited field of work for the inhabitants of the countries into which they are imported."
"Raw materials," says the Havre petition, "constituting as they do the elements of labour, must be submitted to a different treatment, and be gradually admitted at the lowest rate of duty."
The same petition expresses a wish that manufactured products should be admitted, not gradually, but after an indefinite lapse of time, not at the lowest rate of duty, but at a duty of 20 per cent.
"Among other articles, the low price and abundance of which are a necessity," says the Lyons petition, " manufacturers include all raw materials"
All this is founded on an illusion.
We have seen that all value represents labour. Now, it is quite true that manufacturing labour increases tenfold, sometimes a hundredfold, the value of the raw material; that is to say, it yields ten times, a hundred times, more profit to the nation. Hence men are led to reason thus: The production of a hundredweight of iron brings in a gain of only fifteen shillings to workmen of all classes. The conversion of this hundredweight of iron into the mainsprings of watches raises their earnings to £500; and will any one venture to say that a nation has not a greater interest to secure for its labour a gain of five hundred pounds than a gain of fifteen shillings? We do not exchange a hundredweight of unwrought iron for a hundredweight of watch-springs, nor a hundredweight of unwashed wool for a hundredweight of cashmere shawls; but we exchange a certain value of one of these materials for an equal value of another. Now, to exchange equal value for equal value is to exchange equal labour for equal labour. It is not true, then, that a nation which sells five pounds' worth of wrought fabrics or watch-springs, gains more than a nation which sells five pounds' worth of wool or iron.
In a country where no law can be voted, where no tax can be
imposed, but with the consent of those whose dealings the law
# Economic Sophisms/111

<pagequality level="3" user="Zoeannl" />style="background: #ececec; text-align: left; padding-left: 0.5em; font-weight: bold;" class="table-rh"is to regulate, and whose pockets the tax is to affect, the public cannot be robbed without first being imposed on and misled. Our ignorance is the raw material of every extortion from which we suffer, and we may be certain beforehand, that every sophism is the precursor of an act of plunder. My good friends! when you detect a sophism in a petition, button up your breeches-pocket, for you may be sure that this is the mark aimed at.
Let us see, then, what is the real object secretly aimed at by the shipowners of Bordeaux and Havre, and the manufacturers of Lyons, and which is concealed under the distinction which they attempt to draw between agricultural and manufactured commodities.
"It is principally this first class (that which comprises raw materials, upon which no human labour has been bestowed) which affords," say the Bordeaux petitioners, "the principal support to our merchant shipping. … In principle, a wise economy would not tax this class. … The second (commodities partly wrought up) may be taxed to a certain extent. The third (commodities which call for no more exertion of labour) we regard as the fittest subjects of taxation."
The Havre petitioners "consider that it is indispensable to reduce gradually the duty on raw materials to the lowest rate, in order that our manufacturers may gradually find employment for the shipping interest, which furnishes them with the first and indispensable materials of labour."
The manufacturers could not remain behindhand in politeness towards the shipowners. So the Lyons petition asks for the free introduction of raw materials, "in order to prove," as they express it, "that the interests of the manufacturing are not always opposed to those of the maritime towns."
No; but then the interests of both, understood as the petitioners understand them, are in direct opposition to the interests of agriculture and of consumers.
Well, gentlemen, we have come at length to see what you are aiming at, and the object of your subtle economical distinctions. You desire that the law should restrain the transport of finished goods across the ocean, in order that the more costly conveyance of raw and rough materials, bulky, and mixed up
with refuse, should afford greater scope for your merchant
# Economic Sophisms/108

<pagequality level="3" user="Zoeannl" />style="background: #ececec; text-align: left; padding-left: 0.5em; font-weight: bold;" class="table-rh"vierges de tout travail humain; and since they have no value, I should never dream of protecting them. But the first application of labour converts these substances into grass and provender, a second into wool, a third into yarn, a fourth into a woven fabric, a fifth into clothing. Who can assert that the whole of these operations, from the first furrow laid open by the plough, to the last stitch of the tailor's needle, do not resolve themselves into labour?
And it is because these operations are spread over several branches of industry, in order to accelerate and facilitate the accomplishment of the ultimate object, which is to furnish clothing to those who have need of it, that you desire, by an arbitrary distinction, to rank the importance of such works in the order in which they succeed each other, so that the first of the series shall not merit even the name of labour, and that the last, being labour par excellence, shall be worthy of the favours of protection?
THE PETITIONERS: Yes; "we begin to see that corn, like wool, is not exactly a product of which it can be said that no human labour has been bestowed upon it ; but the agriculturist has not, at least, like the manufacturer, done everything himseK or by means of his workmen ; nature has assisted him, and if there is labour worked up in corn, it is not the simple product of labour.
M. DE SAINT-CRICQ: But its value resolves itself exclusively into labour. I am happy that nature concurs in the material formation of grain. I could even wish that it were entirely her work; but you must allow that I have constrained this assistance of nature by my labour, and when I sell you my corn you will remark this, that it is not for the labour of nature that I ask you to pay, but for my own.
But, as you state the case, manufactured commodities are no longer the exclusive products of labour. Is the manufacturer not beholden to nature in his processes? Does he not avail himself of the assistance of the steam-engine, of the pressure of the atmosphere, just as, with the assistance of the plough, I avail myself of its humidity? Has he created the laws of gravitation, of the transmission of forces, of affinity?
THE PETITIONERS: Well, this is the case of the wool over
again; but coal is assuredly the work, the exclusive work, of
# Economic Sophisms/112

<pagequality level="3" user="Zoeannl" />style="background: #ececec; text-align: left; padding-left: 0.5em; font-weight: bold;" class="table-rh"shipping, and more largely employ your marine resources. This is what you call a wise economy.
On the same principle, why do you not ask that the pines of Russia should be brought to you with their branches, bark, and roots; the silver of Mexico in its mineral state; the hides of Buenos Ayres sticking to the bones of the diseased carcases from which they have been torn?
I expect that railway shareholders, the moment they are in a majority in the Chambers, will proceed to make a law forbidding the manufacture of the brandy which is consumed in Paris. And why not? Would not a law enforcing the conveyance of ten casks of wine for every cask of brandy afford Parisian industry the indispensable materials of its labour, and give employment to our locomotive resources?
How long will men shut their eyes to this simple truth?
Manufactures, shipping, labour.—all have for end the general, the public good; to create useless industries, to favour superfluous conveyances, to support a greater amount of labour than is necessary, not for the good of the public, but at the expense of the public—is to realize a true petitio principii. It is not labour which is desirable for its own sake; it is consumption. All labour without a commensurate result is a loss. You may as well pay sailors for pitching stones into the sea as pay them for transporting useless refuse. Thus, we arrive at the result to which all economic sophisms, numerous as they are, conduct us, namely, confounding the means with the end, and developing the one at the expense of the other.
# Economic Sophisms/114

<pagequality level="3" user="Zoeannl" />style="background: #ececec; text-align: left; padding-left: 0.5em; font-weight: bold;" class="table-rh"invasion? What possible similarity can be imagined between a ship of war which comes to vomit fire and devastation on our towns, and a merchant ship which comes to offer a free voluntary exchange of commodities for commodities?
The same thing holds of the use made of the word inundation. This word is ordinarily used in a bad sense, for we often see our fields injured, and our harvests carried away by floods. If, however, they leave on our soil something of greater value than what they carry away, like the inundations of the Nile, we should be thankful for them, as the Egyptians are. Before we declaim, then, against the inundations of foreign products—before proceeding to restrain them by irksome and costly obstacles—we should inquire to what class they belong, and whether they ravage or fertilize. What should we think of Mehemet Ali, if, instead of raising, at great cost, bars across the Nile, to extend wider its inundations, he were to spend his money in digging a deeper channel to prevent Egypt being soiled by the foreign slime which descends upon her from the Mountains of the Moon? We display exactly the same degree of wisdom and sense, when we desire, at the cost of millions, to defend our country … From what? From the benefits which nature has bestowed on other climates.
Among the metaphors which conceal a pernicious theory, there is no one more in use than that presented by the words tribute and tributary.
These words have now become so common that they are used as synonymous with purchase and purchaser, and are employed indiscriminately.
And yet a tribute is as different from a purchase as a theft is from an exchange; and I should like quite as well to hear it said, Cartouche has broken into my strong-box and purchased a thousand pounds, as to hear one of our deputies repeat, We have paid Germany tribute for a thousand horses which she has sold us.
For what distinguishes the act of Cartouche from a purchase is, that he has not put into my strong-box, and with my consent, a value equivalent to what he has taken out of it.
And what distinguishes our remittance of £20,000 which
we have made to Germany from a tribute paid to her is this,
# Alekhine's Defence

Black begins his strike against the center with this move.

## Theory table

For explanation of theory tables, see theory table and for notation, see algebraic notation. .
'1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4. c4 Nb6 5. f4 dxe5'
| 6 |
| fxe5 - | = |
When contributing to this Wikibook, please follow the Conventions for organization.
# Alekhine Defence

The so-called Alekhine Knights come out to attack White's center, with d4 under attack. White must now defend the pawn. The main line is 7.Be3. 7.Nf3 is strongly met by 7...Bg4 with strong pressure on the center.

## Theory table

For explanation of theory tables, see theory table and for notation, see algebraic notation. .
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4. c4 Nb6 5. f4 dxe5 6.fxe6 Nc6
| 7 |
| Nf3 - | = |
| Be3 - | = |
When contributing to this Wikibook, please follow the Conventions for organization.
# St. George Defence
### 1...a6

When played seriously this defence is workable. Black lets White grab the center like in a "hypermodern" opening, while gaining power on the queenside. Usually, b5 and Bb7 will follow soon (attacking e4 pawn, eventually with help of Nf6). That way, Black can enter a very playable middlegame, contrary to what might have been expected. It remains viable in highly skilled games, such as Tony Miles overcoming Karpov using this opening.
In response to this move, White can either start taking control of the center with 2. d4 or try to prevent the b5 move with 2. c4. But this last move is considered inferior because of 2...e5, where Black would have a slight advantage (the same goes for 2. a4).
Also note that White can try to set a powerful trap for unadvised Black players (but those who play the St. George as Black are generally advised players) by playing 2. Bc4. If 2...b5, then 3. Bxf7+ Kxf7 4. Qh5+ and White can manage to win a rook.
White can also choose to develop a knight first with 2. Nf3 or to challenge Black on the diagonal with 2. g3.

## Theory table

For explanation of theory tables, see theory table and for notation, see algebraic notation.
1.e4 a6
| | 2 | 3 |
| Main line | d4 b5 | Nf3 Bb7 | = |
| | ... c4 | = |
| | ... Bc4 | = |
| | ... Nf3 | = |
| | ... g3 | = |
When contributing to this Wikibook, please follow the Conventions for organization.

## References

* ↑ Anatoly Karpov vs Anthony Miles "The Incorrect Opening", 1980
* Nunn's Chess Openings. 1999. John Nunn (Editor), Graham Burgess, John Emms, Joe Gallagher. ISBN 1-8574-4221-0.
* Modern Chess Openings: MCO-14. 1999. Nick de Firmian, Walter Korn. ISBN 0-8129-3084-3.
# St. George Defence
### 2.Bc4

It's tempting for Black to play 2...b5 but it's a trap : 3. Bxf7+ Kxf7 4. Qh5+!. If now 4. ... Kf6?? then 5. Qf5#, 4. ... Ke6?? transposes to the same line after 5. Qd5+ Kf6 6. Qf5# checkmate. The only evasion of mate is 4. ... g6 5. Qd5+ any 6. Qxa8 and White wins a rook.
Instead, 2...e6 is sound. 2. Nf6 is good too : 3. e5 d5

## Theory table

For explanation of theory tables, see theory table and for notation, see algebraic notation. .
'1.e4 a6 2.Bc4'
| 2 |
| ... e6 | = |
| ... b5 | +/- |
When contributing to this Wikibook, please follow the Conventions for organization.
# St. George Defence
### 2...b5

Black hasn't spotted the trap. Let's play 3. Bxf7+.

## Theory table

For explanation of theory tables, see theory table and for notation, see algebraic notation. .
'1.e4 a6 2.Bc4 b5'
| 3 |
| Bxf7+ - | +/- |
When contributing to this Wikibook, please follow the Conventions for organization.
# Chess Opening Theory/1. e4/1...Nf6/2. e5/2...Nd5/3. g3

This opening line is uncommon among master games (it has only been played around a hundred times) so it doesn't have any theory attached. The extremely basic idea is that it opens up the g2 square for the bishop, which attacks the knight on d5 if it is left undefended. This can be used to regain the tempo that is commonly lost by playing g2 in other openings.
# Ware Defence/Corn Stalk Defence

The Corn Stalk Defence, also known as the Ware Defence or Corn Stalks, is a rare chess opening with the moves:
    1. e4 a5?!
It is generally regarded as a dubious response to 1. e4, as it does nothing to aid in Black's development, allows White a free hand in the center, and weakens the b5 and b6 squares. Note the rook development to a6 is already prevented. However, if played in a style similar to 1...a6, namely with Black playing 2...b6 and 3...Bb7, it can be effective. Preston Ware, someone known for playing eccentric openings, often used the Corn Stalk Defence in tournament play, with decent success.
When contributing to this Wikibook, please follow the Conventions for organization.

## External links

* Preston Ware's games with the Corn Stalk at ChessGames.com
# Alekhine Defence

With this move, White defends the d4-pawn with the bishop while not allowing the ...Bg4 pin. Black now almost always plays 7...Bf5, since that is the only logical square for the bishop. Then White plays 8.Nc3 and then Black plays 8...e6, and now White plays 9.Nf3 when Black has a choice between several moves.
# Adams Defence
### 1...Nh6?!

The Adams Defense is considered a weak response to the King's Pawn Opening, as it develops the Knight to an inferior square, allows White quick and easy development, and opens no lines for developing Black's pieces. Therefore, the Adams Defense is very uncommon.

## Theory table

For explanation of theory tables, see theory table and for notation, see algebraic notation.
1. e4 Nh6?!
| | 2 | 3 |
| Hippopotamus Defence | d4 g6 | c4 f6 | +/= |
When contributing to this Wikibook, please follow the Conventions for organization.

## References

* Modern Chess Openings: MCO-14. 1999. Nick de Firmian, Walter Korn. ISBN 0-8129-3084-3.
* Kasparov, Garry, & Keene, Raymond 1989 Batsford chess openings 2. ISBN 0-8050-3409-9.
# Chess Opening Theory/1. e4/1...Nf6/2. e5/2...Nd5/3. d4/3...d6/4. c4/4...Nb6/5. f4/5...dxe5/6. fxe5

The white center is now very strong. Black has two main options to counter it.
    6...Nc6 attacks the d4 pawn. This pawn cannot be pushed as the e pawn would be left en prise.
    6...c5 is far riskier. After 7. d5, Black can be strangled. This game is going to be very tactical.
6...Bf5 is also possible & keeps the option of ...c5 before ...Nc6, but it tends to transpose into 6...Nc6.

## Theory table

For explanation of theory tables, see theory table and for notation, see algebraic notation. .
'1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4. c4 Nb6 5. f4 dxe5 6. fxe5'
| 6 |
| ... Nc6 | = |
| ... c5 | = |
| ... Bf5 | = |
When contributing to this Wikibook, please follow the Conventions for organization.
# Data Coding Theory/Repetition Codes
## Repetition Codes

Repetition codes are not special "codes" so much as they are tricks to try to reduce the error rate. In a repetition code, data is transmitted multiple times, verbatim. The receiver reads enough of these repeats until a clear consensus emerges as to the value of the message.
Perhaps the most popular repetition code is "triple modular redundancy", sending the same message 3 times.
To send n data bits with k repetitions, nk bits need to be transmitted.
Other, more complicated codes can detect and correct occasional single-bit errors with much less overhead, giving a higher goodput data rate through the same channel.

## Example

Let's say we have a repeated message of 3 bits that is sent 3 times. When it is received, each message is different:
* 101
* 001
* 100
Because we didn't receive exactly the same message all 3 times, we have detected that some errors occurred.
We can see that the middle bit is almost certainly a 0, because it is the same in all messages. We can also see that the first and the last digit are likely to be a 1 because 2 out of 3 of the messages say that these values are 1. The transmitted message then was most likely 101.

## Further reading

* Wikipedia:triple modular redundancy
# Data Coding Theory/Resources
## Wikibooks

* Communication Systems
* Communication Networks