On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:10:36 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote: >Mike Schilling <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Butch Malahide wrote: >>> It's a good thing pears come in a variety of colors, or we'd have >>> to put up with dumb jokes about Pear Spaces and the Pear Category >>> Theorem.
>How many colors? Can you prove the four-color pear theorem?
>> Also that there's no common word for their shape other than >> "pear-shaped".
>"Pyriform" isn't common?
>How did "pear-shaped" come to be a synonym for all messed up?
Nobody knows; there are various theories, but no evidence for any of them.
-- Don Aitken Mail to the From: address is not read. To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Mike Schilling <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> wrote: >Butch Malahide wrote: >> It's a good thing pears come in a variety of colors, or we'd have to >> put up with dumb jokes about Pear Spaces and the Pear Category >> Theorem.
>Also that there's no common word for their shape other than "pear-shaped".
There's a fairly common gesture, though.
(Which leads off into how jokes work in ASL, or in the language the Shadowed people used in Light on the Sound, etc.)
Dave -- \/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK> http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
> On Oct 29, 10:09 pm, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote: > > Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> > >Robert Carnegie wrote: > > >> In other news, I was just thinking that me publicly abusing Lawrence > > >> Watt-Evans is rarely as productive as this, but then I look at the > > >> mathematical responses and I've created a monster. It's frankly > > >> disturbing how many people know what "abelian" means
> > > So you're saying many of them are disabeled?
> > Cain it!
> > Surely every child has been exposed to "What's purple and commutes?", yes? > > ... what?
> You went to a school for special children, didn't you?
> (I did...)
Grad School is for very special children.
-- A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
> Butch Malahide wrote: > > On Oct 30, 8:15 am, Jo'Asia <joa...@hel.pl> wrote: > >> Butch Malahide wrote: > >>> On Oct 29, 9:50 pm, Kevin Wald <w...@math.uchicago.edu> wrote: > >>>> And "What's yellow, normed, linear, and complete?" > >>> If the answer is (pfui) > >>> Banana Space, that is even worse than Abelian Grape and Zorn's > >>> Lemon. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
> >> Nope, the answer is *Bananach* Space.
> > Huh. That was the *first* answer I thought of. Dithered for a while > > between Banana and Bananach. Something to be said against each of > > them: Banana is not a very good approximation to Banach, but Bananach > > is not the name of a yellow-skinned fruit. Finally opted for Banana, > > and now you tell me that Bananach is *the answer*. Oh, yeah? Prove it. > > I do *not* accept argument from authority.
> I notice that no one has mentioned the Continuum Hippopotamus.
That animal's a killer.
-- A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
> On Oct 30, 1:04 pm, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > Butch Malahide wrote: > > > On Oct 30, 8:15 am, Jo'Asia <joa...@hel.pl> wrote: > > >> Butch Malahide wrote: > > >>> On Oct 29, 9:50 pm, Kevin Wald <w...@math.uchicago.edu> wrote: > > >>>> And "What's yellow, normed, linear, and complete?" > > >>> If the answer is (pfui) > > >>> Banana Space, that is even worse than Abelian Grape and Zorn's > > >>> Lemon. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
> > >> Nope, the answer is *Bananach* Space.
> > > Huh. That was the *first* answer I thought of. Dithered for a while > > > between Banana and Bananach. Something to be said against each of > > > them: Banana is not a very good approximation to Banach, but Bananach > > > is not the name of a yellow-skinned fruit. Finally opted for Banana, > > > and now you tell me that Bananach is *the answer*. Oh, yeah? Prove it. > > > I do *not* accept argument from authority.
> > I notice that no one has mentioned the Continuum Hippopotamus.- Hide quoted > > text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> It's a good thing pears come in a variety of colors, or we'd have to > put up with dumb jokes about Pear Spaces and the Pear Category Theorem.
But a function is just a set of ordered pears.
-- A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
> Szymon Sokol <szy...@bastard.operator.from.hell.pl> wrote: > > On 29 Oct 2009 12:58:57 GMT, Anthony Nance wrote:
> >> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote: > >>> Butch Malahide wrote: > >>>> On Oct 28, 11:42 am, Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com> wrote: > >>>>> On 2009-10-28 09:40:32 -0700, Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> > >>>>> said:
> >>>>>> On Oct 28, 11:21 am, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> I assure you, my basement's only inhabitants are me and a few > >>>>>>> spiders. > >>>>>> How does the ecology work? Do the spiders eke out a precarious > >>>>>> existence by eating one another? Do you feed them some insects once in > >>>>>> a while to keep them from dying out? > >>>>> Lawrence is in the Washington DC area. Like everyone else in the > >>>>> neighborhood, the spiders commute.
> >>>> He has Abelian spiders?
> >>> Spiders multiply, and that's a commutative property.
> >> But what if this is all happening in the Matrix?
> > They would probably be Hermitian then...
> Are they related to Hermitian crabs?
No such thing hermits don't get crabs.
-- A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
>In other news today, leave me alone. ;-) I have to use a special >eyboard on account of isability. Actually it's called Fitaly, works >by stylus on any touchscreen, and I should get around to making it >talk as I type so I can spot those accidents. Each mistak makes me >look thice as big an idion.
What an unpleasant way to learn the powers of two.
> On 2009-11-02, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:55:08 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie > ><rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >>In other news today, leave me alone. ;-) I have to use a special > >>eyboard on account of isability. Actually it's called Fitaly, works > >>by stylus on any touchscreen, and I should get around to making it > >>talk as I type so I can spot those accidents. Each mistak makes me > >>look thice as big an idion.
> > What an unpleasant way to learn the powers of two.
> Could be powers of three, if he left out an 'r'.
All I -now is, it fallssshort of the standard whicc, notwithstanding ice difficulty of the exercise, I inteod to achieve. Perhaps I should bay "aspire".
Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote: > Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote: >> Each mistak makes me look thice as big an idion. > What an unpleasant way to learn the powers of two.
Stephen Hawking said he was told that each equation in his book would halve its sales. He put one in. I see that his book has been reprinted under a new name. I wonder if he took the equation out. And if that will really double its sales. -- Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/ Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
On Nov 5, 2:56 pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote: > > Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote: > >> Each mistak makes me look thice as big an idion. > > What an unpleasant way to learn the powers of two.
> Stephen Hawking said he was told that each equation in his book > would halve its sales. He put one in. I see that his book has been > reprinted under a new name. I wonder if he took the equation out. > And if that will really double its sales.
The equation was E=mc^2 which doesn't really have sales-halving potential due to its place in pop culture.
On Nov 5, 4:23 am, Moriarty <blue...@ivillage.com> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 2:56 pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> > Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote: > > > Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote: > > >> Each mistak makes me look thice as big an idion. > > > What an unpleasant way to learn the powers of two.
> > Stephen Hawking said he was told that each equation in his book > > would halve its sales. He put one in. I see that his book has been > > reprinted under a new name. I wonder if he took the equation out. > > And if that will really double its sales.
> The equation was E=mc^2 which doesn't really have sales-halving > potential due to its place in pop culture.
Unless he's gonna try to explain it to you. It's like the difference between putting Che Guevara on a wall poster or T-shirt and meeting the guy.
On Nov 6, 12:02 am, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 4:23 am, Moriarty <blue...@ivillage.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 2:56 pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
<snip>
> > > Stephen Hawking said he was told that each equation in his book > > > would halve its sales. He put one in. I see that his book has been > > > reprinted under a new name. I wonder if he took the equation out. > > > And if that will really double its sales.
> > The equation was E=mc^2 which doesn't really have sales-halving > > potential due to its place in pop culture.
> Unless he's gonna try to explain it to you. It's like the difference > between putting Che Guevara on a wall poster or T-shirt and meeting > the guy.
> I'm just sayin'.
Couldn't agree more. Everyone knows the equation, only a small fraction of the population know what it *means*. Besides, would it be possible to explain it without using any more equations, each of which would halve sales?
Moriarty wrote: > On Nov 6, 12:02 am, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote: > > On Nov 5, 4:23 am, Moriarty <blue...@ivillage.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 5, 2:56 pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> <snip>
> > > > Stephen Hawking said he was told that each equation in his book > > > > would halve its sales. He put one in. I see that his book has been > > > > reprinted under a new name. I wonder if he took the equation out. > > > > And if that will really double its sales.
> > > The equation was E=mc^2 which doesn't really have sales-halving > > > potential due to its place in pop culture.
> > Unless he's gonna try to explain it to you. It's like the difference > > between putting Che Guevara on a wall poster or T-shirt and meeting > > the guy.
> > I'm just sayin'.
> Couldn't agree more. Everyone knows the equation, only a small > fraction of the population know what it *means*. Besides, would it be > possible to explain it without using any more equations, each of which > would halve sales?
Yeah. Paradox. It's the most powerful equation in the world, but you can't ever use it.
|
