u/MarlonFord

I’ve been climbing on and off for a few years now. I mainly climb indoors, but I would like to go out more. I do get regular climbing lessons (weekly) and it’s great for my technique and strength. I’d say I can solidly climb 6A, 6B. idk if I can do an 7A or not, our gym doe have grades. The few times I climbed at gyms with proper grades I wasn’t able to properly assess. I did a 6C+ in 2 tries, but haven’t done others and didn’t try many 7s and beyond.

I was thinking it might be good to work on my finger strength, but mostly to kind of keep them safe and ready for bigger loads. I had recently a bit of an overuse issue of my A2 on the ring finger. No acute injury or anything like that. I got back to climbing after a 1 year break and overdid my sessions, going trice a week and every time having proper sessions.

I’ve changed that now to have chill sessions when I don’t have my guided trainings. An I have been thinking it would be good to have the hangboard at home so I can do few short hand through the day and just give fingers gradual time over quick few seconds loads to get them stronger for the future.

maybe if it adds anything to the equation I’m 40

What are the provisions, laws or other legislative acts that ensure a constitutional monarchy? And limit the powers of the monarch?

As far as I found the monarch is recognised as the legitimation of sovereignty and reigning and ruling power of Canada. The monarch is then the one to appoint the GG and then it cascades from there on. Obviously the Canadian model relies on the will of people, but for that to become anything the executive authority (formally) still lies within the Crown.

It’s evident that the de jure ruling of Canada is indeed governed by the people and the king in that sense has a symbolic role. (Even though that the legitimacy of the country is given through the monarch)

What I’m trying to find is what are the actual limits put on the crown. What are the de facto, rules that prevent the monarch from taking controls. (Not so much the conventions or possible outrages that would ensue in such a situation)

I never lived under a king or other monarch, so this things are very alien to me.

This has been asked before in a way, but maybe not really. Was there any atempt to define 1 beyond axioms. Even in set theory as fast as I understand the quality or discretness of 1 is self aserted. What I wonder, can we think of 1 as something that arises from the system itself and how would we then reduce it further? Not as a partial number; but rather as emerging.

I keep wondering if any numbers (reals too) are fundamentally reducible and if there was an attempt to show how they come to be?