Topic: Ecosse can do so littre
!MLHqI35Srs started this discussion 2 years ago #109,967
!MLHqI35Srs (OP) double-posted this 2 years ago, 14 seconds later[^] [v] #1,225,896
!MLHqI35Srs (OP) triple-posted this 2 years ago, 41 seconds later, 55 seconds after the original post[^] [v] #1,225,897
!MLHqI35Srs (OP) quadruple-posted this 2 years ago, 34 seconds later, 1 minute after the original post[^] [v] #1,225,898
!MLHqI35Srs (OP) quintuple-posted this 2 years ago, 35 seconds later, 2 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,225,899
!MLHqI35Srs (OP) sextuple-posted this 2 years ago, 29 seconds later, 2 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,225,900
!MLHqI35Srs (OP) septuple-posted this 2 years ago, 59 seconds later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,225,901
!MLHqI35Srs (OP) octuple-posted this 2 years ago, 40 seconds later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,225,902
!MLHqI35Srs (OP) nonuple-posted this 2 years ago, 37 seconds later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,225,903
!MLHqI35Srs (OP) decuple-posted this 2 years ago, 40 seconds later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,225,904
!MLHqI35Srs (OP) undecuple-posted this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,225,905
!MLHqI35Srs (OP) duodecuple-posted this 2 years ago, 37 seconds later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,225,906
!MLHqI35Srs (OP) tridecuple-posted this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,225,907
!MLHqI35Srs (OP) quattuodecuple-posted this 2 years ago, 19 seconds later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,225,908
!MLHqI35Srs (OP) sexadecuple-posted this 2 years ago, 51 seconds later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,225,909
!MLHqI35Srs (OP) sedecuple-posted this 2 years ago, 30 seconds later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,225,910
!MLHqI35Srs (OP) septuadecuple-posted this 2 years ago, 49 seconds later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,225,911
!MLHqI35Srs (OP) octadecuple-posted this 2 years ago, 17 seconds later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,225,912
!MLHqI35Srs (OP) just kept on posting this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,225,913
Woe, my sub-Guassian^2 mathematics; may-be some day it'll sur-pass reception, but certainly, these are not feats in mean.
spectacles joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 16 hours later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,225,998
What is this. Oh, maths? Let's see here.
Mmhmm, mmhmm. That's some maths alright.
First thing I've read by you that actually makes any sense.
@previous (!MLHqI35Srs)
Well, don't be so hard on yourself if that's what you mean. Stick with the maths. Like that one post said, rigorous mathematical structures can often be the key to comprehensibility.
Are you going into programming at all? The robust error correcting and need for strict syntax go hand in hand with analytical thinking and well formulated logic based proofs. Axioms are the kind of self evident knowledge I think you're suited for.
So, good work, maths are absolute gibberish to most people. Their lack of understanding absolutely makes them an idiot and you'd be fully justified for thinking so. How about that for an axiom.
Keep it up, you'll go far. Or at least 1+1/(a+bx+cx²)=y times as far the limit.
Mmhmm, mmhmm. That's some maths alright.
First thing I've read by you that actually makes any sense.
@previous (!MLHqI35Srs)
Well, don't be so hard on yourself if that's what you mean. Stick with the maths. Like that one post said, rigorous mathematical structures can often be the key to comprehensibility.
Are you going into programming at all? The robust error correcting and need for strict syntax go hand in hand with analytical thinking and well formulated logic based proofs. Axioms are the kind of self evident knowledge I think you're suited for.
So, good work, maths are absolute gibberish to most people. Their lack of understanding absolutely makes them an idiot and you'd be fully justified for thinking so. How about that for an axiom.
Keep it up, you'll go far. Or at least 1+1/(a+bx+cx²)=y times as far the limit.
(Edited 48 seconds later.)
!MLHqI35Srs joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 6 hours later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,015
@previous (spectacles)
I'm studying that at the same time as Chemistry albeit much more sluggishly. I've put to rest a lot of the early curriculum; it can teach me table, it can give me bad syme, and internationally <-//-> preposition is useless anyway; more people just seem to squiggle pre-calc and calc around semi-complete symal elements.
https://minichan.net/topic/109204#reply_1226014
Feel free to debate me on anything "chainal" here.
I'm studying that at the same time as Chemistry albeit much more sluggishly. I've put to rest a lot of the early curriculum; it can teach me table, it can give me bad syme, and internationally <-//-> preposition is useless anyway; more people just seem to squiggle pre-calc and calc around semi-complete symal elements.
https://minichan.net/topic/109204#reply_1226014
Feel free to debate me on anything "chainal" here.
(Edited 19 seconds later.)
spectacles replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,029
@previous (!MLHqI35Srs)
chemistry is good. anything with rigorous procedures or formal methodologies to apply and adhere to, I see you having strength in those areas. you're very tedious in that you don't shy away from it, that's a strength when applied procedurally. abstraction is non-error correcting as far as formalism goes, and I think you know the kind of people that formalize non-error correctively are the representational esoterics of the hard sciences.
chemistry is good. anything with rigorous procedures or formal methodologies to apply and adhere to, I see you having strength in those areas. you're very tedious in that you don't shy away from it, that's a strength when applied procedurally. abstraction is non-error correcting as far as formalism goes, and I think you know the kind of people that formalize non-error correctively are the representational esoterics of the hard sciences.
!MLHqI35Srs replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,030
@previous (spectacles)
The latter is an old US Irriqois belief I find annoying as well as slightly disproven (Gossamer theorem; perspelexation theorem; transperspexeoposition theorem; etc,) but an old subjuncty is at least welcome as far as law-absolutists abuse the principle "I know so I'm god" in rube.
The latter is an old US Irriqois belief I find annoying as well as slightly disproven (Gossamer theorem; perspelexation theorem; transperspexeoposition theorem; etc,) but an old subjuncty is at least welcome as far as law-absolutists abuse the principle "I know so I'm god" in rube.