[Funny] Funny Pictures! (Keep em clean, folks!)

Status
Not open for further replies.
drifter

drifter

I think the whole 'raping my childhood' thing is way overused, but holy shmoly. NSFW

Are you really sure you want to see this?
I mean, you've seen my other spoilered posts, right? I ain't kidding around here.
All right, don't say I didn't warn you.
 
CynicismKills

CynicismKills

Yeah, those are hilarious. It's a Japanese (surprise!) toy line that makes American figures. They have removable parts and a couple different faces. For some reason Woody's secondary face is a raepface.

For example
 
drifter

drifter

Holy balls you can actually buy those?! Where the hell is my walle...er, I mean, thank you for elucidating the provenance of these figurines my good man. I bid you farewell.

*dashes off to ebay*
 
CynicismKills

CynicismKills

Seriously if you browse 4chan's toy board you'll find a whole set of posts dedicated to this, I guarantee it.

---------- Post added at 09:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:02 PM ----------

Don't say I never gave you anything: Sci-Fi Revoltech Woody
 
CynicismKills

CynicismKills

It's actually pretty tame compared to most. From what I've seen in lurking /v/ and /b/ are the worst places in terms of going full retard.
 
Gusto

Gusto

Note to advertisers: When someone (ie. Kris Straub) makes 2 comics parodying your get-rich-quick bullshit (ie. making instant money from cartooning), it is probably not the best idea to advertise your product right under it.

 
fade

fade

Staff member
figmentPez, my challenge is that neither of those are examples of negative or zero. The holes where the apples go aren't negative apples. The only thing they actually "are" is cardboard indentations. And an absence of apples is actually more meaningless because it's only zero apples because you say it is. In both cases, the only reality is positive apples. We invent the imaginary concepts of zero or negative apples as mathematical devices because they solve problems. The only actual apples are positive.

I'm actually almost quoting chapter 1 of "Linear Systems and Signals" by Lathi, a fairly widespread EE book that I used to teach Linear Systems in Boston. The reason why negatives seem less imaginary is because ironically they're easy to imagine. The holes in the cardboard are not apples, but it's easy to imagine them as the lack of apples. I'll think of a good example, and it's probably going to entail something described by a polynomial, like a object in flight acted on by gravity. If it never contacts the ground, it's flight's roots are going to complex (combination of real and imaginary), but that doesn't mean the roots are meaningless. They still tell you lots about the flight path, and the object is still flying. It just never touched the ground.
 
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
fade said:
figmentPez, my challenge is that neither of those are examples of negative or zero. The holes where the apples go aren't negative apples. The only thing they actually "are" is cardboard indentations. And an absence of apples is actually more meaningless because it's only zero apples because you say it is. In both cases, the only reality is positive apples. We invent the imaginary concepts of zero or negative apples as mathematical devices because they solve problems. The only actual apples are positive.
Click to expand...
The holes for the apples very clearly represent a lack of apples. Regardless of if this is a physically negative amount is irrelevant, it shows a concrete example of how a negative number can exist at all. Even the concept of a debt, while non-physical, is still a simple practical application. Bob owes Fred three apples. Therefore Bob has negative three apples. Whenever Bob gets apples, three of those will go to Fred, so Bob has to get more than three apples to have any of his own. Even though this is a mental concept, and not a physical one, it is still a direct application. A negative number applies specifically to the lack of apples, even if there are no anti-apples lying in wait to negate the existence of real apples.

As for your "something described by a polynomial" and complex roots... wut? That's just showing how imaginary numbers can be used in a mathematical forumla. Where is the imaginary number, all by it's lonesome? What do roots have to do with flight and where is the imaginary number in this analogy? What is the iconic representation of j? A negative number has been represented by the icon of an apple shaped hole. A negative number is the absence of it's equal. Regardless of how real someone considers this, it has been iconified and applied to the pratical world in a simple and straightforward image. Negative numbers are so much more than apple shaped holes, but it's a base to build on.

The same cannot be said for imaginary numbers. If you show me a mathematical formula that describes flight, and how imaginary numbers are necessary to that formula, that will not make flight an imaginary number, or at least not in any way I understand or can visualize. What is the mental image of j? What in the real world, or our mental concept of the real world, is the embodiment of imaginary numbers?
 
fade

fade

Staff member
No, you're arguing teleologically. Negative numbers describe the concept of debt or lack because we need to describe such things, but there's still no such thing as negative apples. And there is especially no such thing as zero apples. All that really matters in the real world are the apples themselves. (And I know makare will call me a valley girl for saying it, but, yes, I realize the apples are just an explanatory concept. Isn't that what I was using it as?) It doesn't matter how many different ways you say it, nothing is showing anything more than evidence that apples could be here. Your sentence "Regardless of how real someone considers this...etc." basically reads as "Negative numbers are real because we can all understand them". Yes, that's kind of what I said, except I stopped short of using the word real, because they're still not.

Clearly I'm not going to convince you of this. But I'll say it again: it's hardly me arguing this. This is a pretty common discussion in engineering circles, where profs have to convince students that negative numbers are unreal just like imaginary numbers. I mean I can scan in the pages in a few textbooks if you think I'm crazy. I mean, I hate to flash a badge, but I've actually taught this very discussion in class several times.

You misunderstood the flight example, because it has exactly what you're asking for. If an airplane's altitude is described by a parabola, yet it never touches the ground, the parabola has complex roots. BUT the roots mean something "real" according to the way you're using it (though not the way I am). The flight is still real. The airplane exists. The roots describe the shape and location of the flight path in the same way that the empty holes describe the potential for apples.

I'm not sure why you're angrily arguing. I'm pointing out the facts as they were pointed out to me and many others. In fact I'm just using my teacher voice.

---------- Post added at 10:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 PM ----------

I could argue the opposite way, too, and say that okay, those negative apples are real. In that way, the flight path descriptors are real. I promise, I will come up with a better example.

The thing that makes me feel compelled to argue this is that every semester, a student does the same, and it always feels like they're argument boils down to "Imaginary numbers are real because they're hard to understand." which always reminds me of Jim Carrey objecting on the grounds that the testimony is extremely damaging to his case.
 
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
fade said:
I could argue the opposite way, too, and say that okay, those negative apples are real. In that way, the flight path descriptors are real. I promise, I will come up with a better example.
Click to expand...
You're missing my point entirely. I don't care if the flight path descriptors are describing the real world. The flight path itself is NOT iconic of j. There is flight, and that flight can be mathematically described by a formula that necessitates the use of j to accurately model it, but there is no single embodiment of j that I've ever had pointed out to me. I don't care if you call it imaginary or not, it's a level of abstraction that is beyond the abstraction of negative numbers and zero. Negative and zero can be iconified, given a visual and conceptual representation that directly represents those concepts in a simple and immediate way. Your example of flight does not do the same thing in any way shape or form. It shows the presence of a complex system in which j is used to mathematically model, but there is no specific aspect of flight that is directly analagous to j.

Apple shaped hole = absence of apples, a negative amount

Flight = complex formula, part of which requires j to express properly but is not immediately representative of j.
 
drifter

drifter

That site told me I write like Cory Doctorow. Is that a good thing or a bad thing :?

I also tried a similar website, which told me I wrote like "something rolling about at random on the keyboard, possibly in pain." Sounds about right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top