User Controls
The Retardest Thread: Fashionably Late Edition.
-
2018-03-31 at 7:44 AM UTC
this track is awesome -
2018-03-31 at 7:46 AM UTC11:36 is amazing
-
2018-03-31 at 7:48 AM UTCWHEN'S THIS AIRING ALREADY?!??!! :(
-
2018-03-31 at 8:18 AM UTC
Originally posted by Enter Fuck I just worked out this math problem (an actual problem with a real world application, not a fucking equation or IQ puzzle you FUCKING FUCKERS) but it seemed too easy and I know I'm not a genius when it comes to math. If I'm wrong though, the entire rest of my assignment is fucked so I dunno what to do.
Post it so we can angrily bicker of which of our wrong answers is correct?
Originally posted by lempoid loompus mathematics is unfalsifiable = anything with numbers cannot be disproven.
What? I never said this nor does it follow from anything I said. Valid formal proofs can not be disproven by definition. There's a difference between "formally disproven" and "empirically falsified", specifically the former is a priori verifiable while the latter requires reference to empirical facts. Our access to these categories of knowledge is very different. -
2018-03-31 at 8:26 AM UTC
-
2018-03-31 at 8:26 AM UTChow 2 make a car
-
2018-03-31 at 8:26 AM UTChow too make a bridge
-
2018-03-31 at 8:26 AM UTChow 2oo make kompuiter? komjupiters>>>??
-
2018-03-31 at 8:27 AM UTCi need t2o0 know how 2o t0 ma3k a co/\/\p\/T3r
-
2018-03-31 at 8:27 AM UTChow computer?
-
2018-03-31 at 8:27 AM UTCi cum jupiters
-
2018-03-31 at 8:30 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny What? I never said this nor does it follow from anything I said. Valid formal proofs can not be disproven by definition. There's a difference between "formally disproven" and "empirically falsified", specifically the former is a priori verifiable while the latter requires reference to empirical facts.
replace "formally disproven" with math
replace "empirically falsified" with philosophy and "by means of observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic."
doesn't obey by the laws of logic and proud! -
2018-03-31 at 8:43 AM UTCyou're getting incoherent sploo. Go to bed.
-
2018-03-31 at 8:45 AM UTCunderstand harder weak bitch
-
2018-03-31 at 8:49 AM UTCEvery time a mathematical argument comes up I get pissed off that I couldn't go to college. I would've loved to study mathematics
I could eventually go back, but I would never be as good as I could've been -
2018-03-31 at 9:09 AM UTCIQ is a measure of how quickly you learn that rainbows aren't objectively real
-
2018-03-31 at 9:17 AM UTCsploo, how many signficant figures are in this number:
0.0023040 -
2018-03-31 at 9:21 AM UTCIt’s five innit
-
2018-03-31 at 9:22 AM UTC
-
2018-03-31 at 9:28 AM UTC
Originally posted by Enter sploo, how many signficant figures are in this number:
0.0023040
3 0s meaning each node of the triangle is ready to be filled with data
the first 0 of the 3 0s is highlighted with . to represent that it is the root of the triangle
if all 3 0s are assumed to just be the blueprint of the triangle's nodes, then 0.00 can be thought of as point A, moving to point B with the number 2, and point C with the number 3. the 0 this time is a separator between the 3 points object with a vortex, and an acceleration to dimension 4, by using the 0 separator as the converter from arithmetical number to exponential number. the 0 after the 4 means that the sequence more likely has another separator to come because the direct predecessor exhibited the same behavior. that would suggest that the sequence is continuous and therefore indefinite and therefore a 4th dimensional object to back up the meta node with the node that describes all of the behavior in a geometrical or theoretical imaginary (lanny likes to play pretend) physics system and therefore the perfect artifact of my own thoughts
