[Funny] Funny Pictures! (Keep em clean, folks!)
- Thread starter Dave
- Start date
- Status
Green_Lantern
Staff member
That picture is just Awesome
North_Ranger
Staff member
I just make something up, like Schlomo El Boof or something. Kinda like what I do with that Indian director, M. Night Shamalamadingdong.
Holy crap, Gusto. You win. There is no point in this thread continuing.
I laughed so hard I snorted.
'La gran aventura de Mortadelo y Filemón': Childhood rape with a spanish flavor and amazing special effects.
North_Ranger
Staff member
Wait wait wait... Those guys got their own movie?
Wait wait wait... Those guys got their own movie?[/QUOTE]
Two of them!
EDIT:
yeah, they are as awful as they look.
North_Ranger
Staff member
... Yikes.
I guess the Finnish equivalent of childhood-raping films would be these children's movies. Haven't seen them myself, though... So there's a chance one of 'em might actually be good.
There's also an older film, Rölli - hirmuisia kertomuksia (Rölli - Terrible Tales), that's actually pretty decent for a TV movie.
I guess the Finnish equivalent of childhood-raping films would be these children's movies. Haven't seen them myself, though... So there's a chance one of 'em might actually be good.
There's also an older film, Rölli - hirmuisia kertomuksia (Rölli - Terrible Tales), that's actually pretty decent for a TV movie.
Well, none looks particularly promising...
Edit: You know, I just realised that they do actually rape one of the main characters in the first Mortadelo y Filemón movies. A brute. In jail. All night long...
Talk about raping childhoods...
L
Liv
This always makes me smile. It's old but I hope I can bring someone a smile today.
Not sure if childhood raep, but I know that my sister STILL can't watch this after what? 20 years or so? I personally rather enjoyed it...
fade
Staff member
You know, to nerd rage a little, I think calling j imaginary was math's greatest semantic error. All because it's hard to put it in a real world example, I guess. But when it comes down to it, it's no more imaginary than 0 or negative numbers.This always makes me smile. It's old but I hope I can bring someone a smile today.
You know, to nerd rage a little, I think calling j imaginary was math's greatest semantic error. All because it's hard to put it in a real world example, I guess. But when it comes down to it, it's no more imaginary than 0 or negative numbers.[/QUOTE]This always makes me smile. It's old but I hope I can bring someone a smile today.
No, no, no, it makes perfect sense. j is a meta-meta object, whereas most numbers are merely meta objects. Math simplifies things and drops the "imaginary" prefix from all numbers once, but j has it twice so therefore it still remains.
However, if you can ship me exactly j apples, I will relent and let you cease to call it an imaginary number.
Quite frankly it would be a lot nicer if j were a "regular" number. As a programmer I either have to use a language (or library) that has a number system that can represent j, but when you get right down to it microprocessors and microcontrollers do not handle it. Although, I suppose one could make the argument that modern GPUs have 2D and 3D coordinate systems that could represent it, and the numeric processors handle those coordinate systems natively, but technically it's all microcode, so not really even then.
I sent you a package of j apples last week. It contained both solutions: an apple and an negative-apple.
Wouldn't they cancel each other out? Or am I going beyond the meta, now?
That was the joke. 
fade
Staff member
You know, to nerd rage a little, I think calling j imaginary was math's greatest semantic error. All because it's hard to put it in a real world example, I guess. But when it comes down to it, it's no more imaginary than 0 or negative numbers.[/QUOTE]This always makes me smile. It's old but I hope I can bring someone a smile today.
No, no, no, it makes perfect sense. j is a meta-meta object, whereas most numbers are merely meta objects. Math simplifies things and drops the "imaginary" prefix from all numbers once, but j has it twice so therefore it still remains.
However, if you can ship me exactly j apples, I will relent and let you cease to call it an imaginary number.
Quite frankly it would be a lot nicer if j were a "regular" number. As a programmer I either have to use a language (or library) that has a number system that can represent j, but when you get right down to it microprocessors and microcontrollers do not handle it. Although, I suppose one could make the argument that modern GPUs have 2D and 3D coordinate systems that could represent it, and the numeric processors handle those coordinate systems natively, but technically it's all microcode, so not really even then.[/QUOTE]
No, that's not why I'm saying that imaginary is a bad name. Negatives and zero are meta meta, too. Show me negative apples. Show me zero apples. They don't exist either. But they're convenient as means of solving problems. It's just easier to conceptualize a problem in "real life" terms where one needs to apply them, like debt calculation. j exists to solve problems, too, even though it doesn't technically exist. My contention is that calling it "imaginary" makes people resistant to learning it.
Lest ye think I'm alone, I'm sort of paraphrasing better mathematicians than me here.
I show you a box. Upon opening you observe three holes inside which are perfectly shaped to fit apples, and only apples. You observe that the holes are empty. Thus, -3 apples.
Next, I show you a box which is empty. It has zero of everything in it, including 0 apples.
Compared to j, negatives and zero are relatively easy to understand and conceptualize in the real world.
People are resistant to learning j because j is hard to learn, and is of much less practical daily use to the average person than 0, negatives, and positives.
The moniker "imaginary" was applied to this and other numbers to make them easier to understand and learn. It explicitly calls out the fact that it doesn't exist - it's imaginary, and only exists as a tool to help solve problems.
I don't doubt that there are a whole group of mathematicians that disagree with the terminology in current use - there are many, many differing opinions on how math should be taught. Keep in mind, however, that audience matters. I think it's ok to teach "imaginary numbers" to high school students, 95% of whom will never need to know or understand them again. The 5% that care will manage just fine, even with the ambiguous terminology.
Keep in mind that I'm not a proponent of any given approach, I just like playing the devil's advocate, so, you know, don't take me too seriously (honestly, this is halforums, if you take anything here too seriously then it's already too late for you to be saved).
fade
Staff member
I never take anything seriously here. Everyone just assumes I do for some reason.
But honestly, you basically said the same thing I did. I disagree with your examples, though. You have not shown me negative apples or zero apples. You showed me phenomena related to them, in the same way I can show you a polynomial with imaginary roots. You can see that, but you still can't see j.
But honestly, you basically said the same thing I did. I disagree with your examples, though. You have not shown me negative apples or zero apples. You showed me phenomena related to them, in the same way I can show you a polynomial with imaginary roots. You can see that, but you still can't see j.
I always thought it was i as well, actually.
- Status