the important thing about Daleks is that they are hateful, unreasonable, relentlessly murderous, and much much stronger and smarter than most other species
if they could be defeated by flights of stairs that would detract from the threat somewhat
Oh, and "Aim for the Eye-stalk, that's the weak point" doesn't detract from the threat?
well ok they are kind of comical with their vision impaired
the problem with the Daleks is that their whole point is to be menacing and seemingly unstoppable, but at the same time the Doctor has to win
it means over time they appear progressively more and more incompetent, so every once in a while they revamp them or show them successfully killing a bunch of people in order to remind viewers that they're actually really dangerous
well ok they are kind of comical with their vision impaired
the problem with the Daleks is that their whole point is to be menacing and seemingly unstoppable, but at the same time the Doctor has to win
it means over time they appear progressively more and more incompetent, so every once in a while they revamp them or show them successfully killing a bunch of people in order to remind viewers that they're actually really dangerous
Yeah, I mean, we all love the Daleks, with their design, and their voices, they're so great. But they have to lose, so yeah, the more we see them, the more we see them lose and the less scary they are.
That's why I like the "Crap! Run for the stairs/Tardis/escape-route" portrayal, where the Doctor winning is the Doctor escaping alive.
I also like the Cybermen, they're pretty darn great, too; and the Ice Warriors; they should be brought back; what's up with that?
I mean, they used to be one of the main antagonists.
I guess, in this case, the Doctor actually succeeded in his Genocide, for once.
Also, the "Everyday object trying to kill you" is fun.
See, there's this tradition that sez "the eyes are the windows of the soul" or some such and looking at eyes is supposed to be all deep and romantic and whatnot. But if I look at someone's eyes, all I see is...
not literally, but kinda like that, y'know? It's like I'm looking at the face of a robot.
See, there's this tradition that sez "the eyes are the windows of the soul" or some such and looking at eyes is supposed to be all deep and romantic and whatnot. But if I look at someone's eyes, all I see is...
not literally, but kinda like that, y'know? It's like I'm looking at the face of a robot.
Something is wrong with me
actually, i kinda get that
i almost wish i could see the world that way, it seems somehow more honest
instead i'm like 'THEY'RE LOOKING AT ME', which is just scary
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
Re: eyes: I can't make eye contact for more than just a few seconds. I just can't. It feels...I dunno, almost like some kind of burning, like their eyes are searing into me.
Fortunately, I've found that if you look at somebody's nose or ear while they speak, it's good enough to fake eye contact.
my endurance for it is longer than it was when i was younger but still, I can only really always look into people's eyes if they're my family or my friends
otherwise it's kind of like that one GIF on Tumblr of Jade from Homestuck waking up and expanding her eyes to fill up her glasses
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
The thing about math, is that when I put it into all those huge steps; each step should be clear and understandable; and you should be able to see how I got from each one to the next, and to each one from the one before. That if the thing I suppose at the beginning is true; then everything after would also be true; right up to the end.
Spoiler:
So, A+24 = 35
supposing that 24 = 24; that 10 + 25 = 35
and that if X = Y; than X-24 = Y-24
then A+24 = 35 means
that (A + 24) - 24 = (35) - 24
and supposing that 24 - 24 = 0
Then A +0 = (10 + 25)- 24; and supposing that 24 + 1 = 25
then A +0 = ( 10 + 1 + 24) -24; and supposing that A +0 = A
then A = (10 + 1)
So, 24-24 = 0; that is inarguable. A + 0 = A, also inarguable. if X = Y; than X-24 = Y-24; also inarguable. That 24 = 24 is inarguable.
Now, the problem here is that we have to establish the following two; which are not inarguable.
10 + 25 = 35
24 + 1 = 25
Let's start with the second one. Imagine that you don't know what 24 and 25 are.
Since if X = Y; than X-1 = Y-1
than if 24 + 1 = 25; but we haven't resolved that into an inarguable equation (like 24 = 24)
it means that (24 + 1) - 1 = (25) - 1
so 24 = 25 - 1
so if X = Y; than X-24 = Y-24
so (24) - 24 = (25 - 1) - 24
and since 24-24 = 0; than
0 = (25 - 1) - 24
and since where X - 24 = 0; X = 24 because 24 - 24 = 0
So, if 0 = (25 - 1) - 24; then it is inarguable that 25 - 1 = 24; because if 0 = X-Y, than X = Y
so, 24 - 24 = 0 = (25-1)-24
then 25 - 1 = 24;
so we get (24-24 = 24-24 = 0) which is inarguable.
and since if X=Y; than X+1 = Y+1
(25-1)+1 = (24)+1; and since X+1-1 = X
25 = 24 + 1; that is now inarguable.
All that remains is for us to prove that 10 + 1 = 11
so, by if X = Y than X-1 = Y-1
(10 + 1)-1 = 11-1
10 = 11 - 1; and since X-X = 0; and when X=Y; X-X=Y-X=0 so when X=Y, X-Y + 0
(10-10) = (11-1)-10
0 = (11-1)-10; and since if Y-X = 0; then Y must = X
11-1 inarguably equals 10; so by if X=Y than X+1 = Y+1
(11-1)+1 = (10) + 1; and by -1 + 1 + 0
11 + 0 = 10 + 1; and by the inarguable X+0 =X
11= 10+1; and this is inarguable.
So, with all the things we suppose being inarguable, and following the same logic throughout, we can conclude safely that when
A+24 = 35
then A=(10+1); and since we know inarguably that (10+1) = 11; and since we know that when X = Y and Y = G, then X = G
we know that A=11.
But nooo, the trick with math is that mathematicians go straight from A+24=35 and get to A=11; without any of the steps in between. The beginning, which is A+24=35; is like a cliff; and the end, which is A=11; is like another cliff.
When you use the proofs correctly, using the inarguable tenets (X=X, X-1=X-1, X-X=0, and so on); it is a bridge connecting the cliffs; a straight pathway on which you can walk and not fall. Even the people who aren't considering themselves to be very good at math can still walk your bridge and get from A+24=35 to A=11; without falling.They can follow you; and see why the answer is what it is. You could only show some of the inarguable proofs and condense others; but then following you requires more effort; and some people must be considered to be like snakes. A bridge where you have to jump to get past missing sections might be okay for most people, but not for snakes, who are not noted for jumping but are just as agile as anybody (even those not good at math can still be as smart as anybody).
But mathematicians go straight from one cliff to the other, without steps or bridges; and then laugh at the snakes for not being able to follow them.
It's not that the snakes are incapable of getting from one cliff to the other. And maybe the snakes don't want to go on your bridge, and that's okay.
Spoiler:
But for me to go all: when B = the square root of {(B*A*D)/C};
and B, C, A, and D are whole numbers
A^2+ B^2+ C^2 + D^2 can be written as the sum of two squares (but one of the squares will involve imaginary numbers)
and expect everyone to instantly understand why; and the logic involved, and the math involved; would be wrong.
Now, if you're writing for mathematicians, who can leap and skip along the bridge, you might only have to include one out of ten of the proofs.
But saying that people are dumb for not being able to get
"A^2+ B^2+ C^2 + D^2 can be written as the sum of two squares (but one of the squares will involve imaginary numbers)" from "when B = the square root of {(B*A*D)/C}; and B, C, A, and D are whole numbers"
would be like being saying that people who speak and read Swahili but don't understand Nahuatl are illiterate. Provide a translation when your audience doesn't read your language. When your audience understands your language, you can go on with the jargon and the skipped steps as you please.
If your audience understands Pig Latin but not Morse Code; it doesn't mean they are ignorant of cryptography. If your audience understands Morse, it is appropriate to tap in Morse and give them a message that way. If they, however, understand Pig Latin but not Morse, then you should use Pig Latin. If they understand neither, then use neither or teach them a code. Communication is a two way street, even for mathematicians. Don't be a Fermat. Don't treat people as slow and clumsy because they can't jump from cliff to cliff. Don't treat people as dumb because they can't get instantly to the answer from the problem.
Calculators and Savants are amazing, and I don't mean to disparage how useful they are; but a person who is slow but steady at math is still a smart kid; and a person who needs the huge, long, proofs to get from the question to the answer; can still get to the answer.
Comments
i am a disgusting hairy blob of organic matter that's somehow able to form sentences
the problem with the Daleks is that their whole point is to be menacing and seemingly unstoppable, but at the same time the Doctor has to win
it means over time they appear progressively more and more incompetent, so every once in a while they revamp them or show them successfully killing a bunch of people in order to remind viewers that they're actually really dangerous
That's why I like the "Crap! Run for the stairs/Tardis/escape-route" portrayal, where the Doctor winning is the Doctor escaping alive.
I also like the Cybermen, they're pretty darn great, too; and the Ice Warriors; they should be brought back; what's up with that?
I mean, they used to be one of the main antagonists.
I guess, in this case, the Doctor actually succeeded in his Genocide, for once.
Also, the "Everyday object trying to kill you" is fun.
not literally, but kinda like that, y'know? It's like I'm looking at the face of a robot.
Something is wrong with me
the new Doctor Who isn't perfect, but it's an enjoyable continuation of the series
i almost wish i could see the world that way, it seems somehow more honest
instead i'm like 'THEY'RE LOOKING AT ME', which is just scary
i guess not
i see what you mean
I leave you with a drunken frenzy
yay!
Fortunately, I've found that if you look at somebody's nose or ear while they speak, it's good enough to fake eye contact.
Than A^2 + B^2 + C^2 + D^2
is <[(A+D)*(A+D)] + [{i(B-C)} * {-i(B-C)}]>
But why?
Well, the reason is as follows
If B = the square root of {(B*A*D)/C}
Than B^2 = (B*A*D)/C
and dividing both sides by B
(B^2)/B = [{B*A*D)/C]/B
or B = (B*A*D)/(C*B)
or B = (A*D)/C
so
B*C = (C*A*D)/C
or B*C = A*D
Now, knowing B*C = A*D
then what is is <[(A+D)*(A+D)] + [{i(B-C)} * {-i(B-C)}]>
Well, <[(A+D)*(A+D)] + [{i(B-C)} * {-i(B-C)}]> is
is is <[(A*A + A*D + D*A + D*D] + [{i(B-C)} * {-i(B-C)}]>
<[(A*A + A*D + D*A + D*D] + [{(Bi-Ci)} * {(-Bi+Ci)}]>
<[(A^2 + 2AD + D^2] + [{(Bi-Ci)} * {(-Bi+Ci)}]>
<[(A^2 + 2AD + D^2] + [{(Bi-Ci)} * {(Ci-Bi)}]>
<[(A^2 + 2AD + D^2] + [(Bi-Ci)*(Ci-Bi)]>
<[(A^2 + 2AD + D^2] + [(Bi-Ci)*(Ci-Bi)]>
Let's figure out what the blue part is
so
[(Bi-Ci)*(Ci-Bi)]
is Bi*(Ci-Bi) - Ci(Ci-Bi)
(Bi * Ci) + [(Bi *-Bi)] + [(-Ci*Ci)] + (-Ci*-Bi)
(BC *i^2) + [-(B^2) * i^2)] + [-(C^2) * i^2] + (CB * i^2)
since i^2 = -1
(BC *-1) + [-(B^2) *-1)] + [-(C^2) * -1] + (CB * -1)
or (-BC) + [(B^2)] + [(C^2)] + (-CB)
since CB = BC
is (-BC) + [(B^2)] + [(C^2)] + (-CB)
is (-BC) + [(B^2)] + [(C^2)] + (-BC)
or B^2 +C^2 - 2BC
But what is <[(A^2 + 2AD + D^2] + [(Bi-Ci)*(Ci-Bi)]> also written as <[(A+D)*(A+D)] + [{i(B-C)} * {-i(B-C)}]>
so [(Bi-Ci)*(Ci-Bi)]> is B^2 +C^2 - 2BC
so <[(A^2 + 2AD + D^2] + [(Bi-Ci)*(Ci-Bi)]>
is <[(A^2 + D^2 + 2AD] + [B^2 +C^2 - 2BC]>
so we have A^2 + D^2 + B^2 + C^2 + 2AD - 2BC
And since we know from earlier that B*C = A*D
and B*C can be written as BC; and A*D can be written as AD
BC = AD
so AD = BC
so 2AD = 2BC
so 2AD - 2BC = 0
so A^2 + D^2 + B^2 + C^2 + (2AD - 2BC)
is A^2 + D^2 + B^2 + C^2 + (0)
or A^2+ B^2+ C^2 + D^2
and since A^2+ B^2+ C^2 + D^2 is equal to <[(A^2 + 2AD + D^2] + [(Bi-Ci)*(Ci-Bi)]>
which is <[(A+D)*(A+D)] + [{i(B-C)} * {-i(B-C)}]>
than A^2+ B^2+ C^2 + D^2 is equal to <[(A+D)*(A+D)] + [{i(B-C)} * {-i(B-C)}]>
so, we can conclude that when B*C = A*D;
which is the same as when B = the square root of {(B*A*D)/C}
than A^2+ B^2+ C^2 + D^2 is equal to <[(A+D)*(A+D)] + [{i(B-C)} * {-i(B-C)}]>
So, if we count both i and -i as square roots of negative one; than [{i(B-C)} * {-i(B-C)}]>
is [{square root of negative one(B-C)} * {other square root of negative one(B-C)}]>
so <[(A+D)*(A+D)] + [{square root of negative one(B-C)} * {other square root of negative one(B-C)}]> = [(A+D)^2] + [{square root of negative one(B-C)}^2]
and both of these are equal to A^2+ B^2+ C^2 + D^2
So, when B = the square root of {(B*A*D)/C};
and B, C, A, and D are whole numbers
A^2+ B^2+ C^2 + D^2 can be written as the sum of two squares (but one of the squares will involve imaginary numbers)
So yeah, the sum of four squares can be written as the sum of two squares.
Now, if you want me to find A^3 + B^3 = C^3
then no. I'm not gonna.
MATH
-runs away-
MATH
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
So, A+24 = 35
supposing that 24 = 24; that 10 + 25 = 35
and that if X = Y; than X-24 = Y-24
then A+24 = 35 means
that (A + 24) - 24 = (35) - 24
and supposing that 24 - 24 = 0
Then A +0 = (10 + 25)- 24; and supposing that 24 + 1 = 25
then A +0 = ( 10 + 1 + 24) -24; and supposing that A +0 = A
then A = (10 + 1)
So, 24-24 = 0; that is inarguable. A + 0 = A, also inarguable. if X = Y; than X-24 = Y-24; also inarguable. That 24 = 24 is inarguable.
Now, the problem here is that we have to establish the following two; which are not inarguable.
10 + 25 = 35
24 + 1 = 25
Let's start with the second one. Imagine that you don't know what 24 and 25 are.
Since if X = Y; than X-1 = Y-1
than if 24 + 1 = 25; but we haven't resolved that into an inarguable equation (like 24 = 24)
it means that (24 + 1) - 1 = (25) - 1
so 24 = 25 - 1
so if X = Y; than X-24 = Y-24
so (24) - 24 = (25 - 1) - 24
and since 24-24 = 0; than
0 = (25 - 1) - 24
and since where X - 24 = 0; X = 24 because 24 - 24 = 0
So, if 0 = (25 - 1) - 24; then it is inarguable that 25 - 1 = 24; because if 0 = X-Y, than X = Y
so, 24 - 24 = 0 = (25-1)-24
then 25 - 1 = 24;
so we get (24-24 = 24-24 = 0) which is inarguable.
and since if X=Y; than X+1 = Y+1
(25-1)+1 = (24)+1; and since X+1-1 = X
25 = 24 + 1; that is now inarguable.
All that remains is for us to prove that 10 + 1 = 11
so, by if X = Y than X-1 = Y-1
(10 + 1)-1 = 11-1
10 = 11 - 1; and since X-X = 0; and when X=Y; X-X=Y-X=0 so when X=Y, X-Y + 0
(10-10) = (11-1)-10
0 = (11-1)-10; and since if Y-X = 0; then Y must = X
11-1 inarguably equals 10; so by if X=Y than X+1 = Y+1
(11-1)+1 = (10) + 1; and by -1 + 1 + 0
11 + 0 = 10 + 1; and by the inarguable X+0 =X
11= 10+1; and this is inarguable.
So, with all the things we suppose being inarguable, and following the same logic throughout, we can conclude safely that when
A+24 = 35
then A=(10+1); and since we know inarguably that (10+1) = 11; and since we know that when X = Y and Y = G, then X = G
we know that A=11.
But nooo, the trick with math is that mathematicians go straight from A+24=35 and get to A=11; without any of the steps in between. The beginning, which is A+24=35; is like a cliff; and the end, which is A=11; is like another cliff.
When you use the proofs correctly, using the inarguable tenets (X=X, X-1=X-1, X-X=0, and so on); it is a bridge connecting the cliffs; a straight pathway on which you can walk and not fall. Even the people who aren't considering themselves to be very good at math can still walk your bridge and get from A+24=35 to A=11; without falling.They can follow you; and see why the answer is what it is. You could only show some of the inarguable proofs and condense others; but then following you requires more effort; and some people must be considered to be like snakes. A bridge where you have to jump to get past missing sections might be okay for most people, but not for snakes, who are not noted for jumping but are just as agile as anybody (even those not good at math can still be as smart as anybody).
But mathematicians go straight from one cliff to the other, without steps or bridges; and then laugh at the snakes for not being able to follow them.
It's not that the snakes are incapable of getting from one cliff to the other. And maybe the snakes don't want to go on your bridge, and that's okay.
But for me to go all: when B = the square root of {(B*A*D)/C};
and B, C, A, and D are whole numbers
A^2+ B^2+ C^2 + D^2 can be written as the sum of two squares (but one of the squares will involve imaginary numbers)
and expect everyone to instantly understand why; and the logic involved, and the math involved; would be wrong.
Now, if you're writing for mathematicians, who can leap and skip along the bridge, you might only have to include one out of ten of the proofs.
But saying that people are dumb for not being able to get
"A^2+ B^2+ C^2 + D^2 can be written as the sum of two squares (but one of the squares will involve imaginary numbers)" from "when B = the square root of {(B*A*D)/C}; and B, C, A, and D are whole numbers"
would be like being saying that people who speak and read Swahili but don't understand Nahuatl are illiterate. Provide a translation when your audience doesn't read your language. When your audience understands your language, you can go on with the jargon and the skipped steps as you please.
If your audience understands Pig Latin but not Morse Code; it doesn't mean they are ignorant of cryptography. If your audience understands Morse, it is appropriate to tap in Morse and give them a message that way. If they, however, understand Pig Latin but not Morse, then you should use Pig Latin. If they understand neither, then use neither or teach them a code. Communication is a two way street, even for mathematicians. Don't be a Fermat. Don't treat people as slow and clumsy because they can't jump from cliff to cliff. Don't treat people as dumb because they can't get instantly to the answer from the problem.
Calculators and Savants are amazing, and I don't mean to disparage how useful they are; but a person who is slow but steady at math is still a smart kid; and a person who needs the huge, long, proofs to get from the question to the answer; can still get to the answer.
Yes
I forgot the password though