|
|
Post by C@V on Apr 27, 2007 8:51:45 GMT -1
But you can enjoy both together. Eg: When enjoying a woman consider her geometric contours and think about her molecular structure. Then think that 300m sperm will be released into her and consider the velocity at which they are ejaculated and what trajectory they will travel! And women fall at your feet when you tell them that do they?  Hu huh as you well know!  |
|
|
|
Post by Neko Bazu on Apr 27, 2007 8:53:22 GMT -1
You can't create something in maths though. There's only one answer, nothing is left open to an individual’s own interpretation and that is boring and regimented. Try telling that to Einstein or the entire Islamic religion, whose art has for centuries been based on maths:   Or try telling that to anyone who's ever created a digital image. |
|
|
|
Post by Mrs H on Apr 27, 2007 8:54:59 GMT -1
My favourite bit of thinking outside the box ............ The following is an actual question given on a University of Washington Chemistry mid term. The answer was so "profound" that the professor shared it with colleagues, which is why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well.
BONUS QUESTION: IS HELL EXOTHERMIC (GIVES OFF HEAT) OR ENDOTHERMIC (ABSORBS HEAT)?
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's law (gas cools off when it expands and heats up when it is compressed), or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:
_______________________
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate that souls are moving into Hell and the rate they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul goes to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving.
As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell.
With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially.
Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand as souls are added.
This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. Of course, if Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
So which is it? If we accept the postulate given to me by Ms. Teresa Banyan during my Freshman year, "...that it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you", and take into account the fact that I still have not succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then #2 cannot be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic, and will not freeze.
_______________________
The student received the only 'A' given.That boy is going to go far! lol |
|
|
|
Post by Mrs H on Apr 27, 2007 8:55:30 GMT -1
But you can enjoy both together. Eg: When enjoying a woman consider her geometric contours and think about her molecular structure. Then think that 300m sperm will be released into her and consider the velocity at which they are ejaculated and what trajectory they will travel! Cav... I prefer my more literary appreciation! So, basically, nur! There are creative artistic types and fastidious scientific types, and ne'er the twain shall meet! ;D What about opposites atrracting Jules? |
|
|
|
Post by Dr LuKas on Apr 27, 2007 8:56:17 GMT -1
It's not maths though.
You're going into it saying 'I'm going to do some maths', you're saying 'I'm going to create something interesting', it'd be just as good if they didn't use maths.
|
|
|
|
Post by jh1980 on Apr 27, 2007 8:58:05 GMT -1
Try telling that to Einstein or the entire Islamic religion, whose art has for centuries been based on maths: Or try telling that to anyone who's ever created a digital image. Neko, I appreciate what you're trying to do there - but the attraction of symmetry etc in the visual sphere is a separate, entirely aesthetic experience which can be appreciated independently of the mathematical process which some may understand to have contributed thereto! Mon dieu this is surprisingly intellectual stuff!  |
|
|
|
Post by Neko Bazu on Apr 27, 2007 8:59:41 GMT -1
It's not maths though. You're going into it saying 'I'm going to do some maths', you're saying 'I'm going to create something interesting', it'd be just as good if they didn't use maths. It's tesellation. That's one of the first mathematical principles you get taught, and they designed that art based on that principle - not just slinging stuff together and hoping it works. It's pre-planned, calculated art, not just a painting/sculpture. |
|
|
|
Post by Mrs H on Apr 27, 2007 9:00:07 GMT -1
Try telling that to Einstein or the entire Islamic religion, whose art has for centuries been based on maths: Or try telling that to anyone who's ever created a digital image. Neko, I appreciate what you're trying to do there - but the attraction of symmetry etc in the visual sphere is a separate, entirely aesthetic experience which can be appreciated independently of the mathematical process which some may understand to have contributed thereto! Mon dieu this is surprisingly intellectual stuff! And Cav started it  I told you there were brains in there somewhere!! |
|
|
|
Post by jh1980 on Apr 27, 2007 9:00:36 GMT -1
What about opposites atrracting Jules? Dunno H but I can tell you honestly I never fancied the women who did sciences at Uni... not consciously because they were scientists, but hey... Yeah and suddenly logic flew out the window...  |
|
|
|
Post by Neko Bazu on Apr 27, 2007 9:01:29 GMT -1
Try telling that to Einstein or the entire Islamic religion, whose art has for centuries been based on maths: Or try telling that to anyone who's ever created a digital image. Neko, I appreciate what you're trying to do there - but the attraction of symmetry etc in the visual sphere is a separate, entirely aesthetic experience which can be appreciated independently of the mathematical process which some may understand to have contributed thereto! Mon dieu this is surprisingly intellectual stuff! That art is based on mathematical beauty, as I said to Lucas. Without the maths, it wouldn't be half as aesthetic. I think the biggest problem here is that too many people are limiting their ideas of what maths entails. It's more than just numbers, as I said! |
|
|
|
Post by Dr LuKas on Apr 27, 2007 9:04:12 GMT -1
That picture isn't maths though. It's art. Somebody painted it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jh1980 on Apr 27, 2007 9:05:48 GMT -1
And Cav started it I told you there were brains in there somewhere!! Yes, it's all coming together! 1) Goes to Imperial, presumably therefore does a science subject. 2) Like all quality graduates does a soul-less but reasonably paid job. 3) Conscience kicks in and starts doing something socially beneficial. Just judging you for the sake of it Matthieu...! |
|
|
|
Post by jh1980 on Apr 27, 2007 9:08:52 GMT -1
That art is based on mathematical beauty, as I said to Lucas. Without the maths, it wouldn't be half as aesthetic. I think the biggest problem here is that too many people are limiting their ideas of what maths entails. It's more than just numbers, as I said! You can appreciate it without understanding the mathematics though. I don't understand certain scientist acquaintances who have *enthused* about calculus though! I admit I don't particularly care if there's a fascinating part of the human experience I missing out on there, it just strikes me as incomprehensible! |
|
|
|
Post by Mrs H on Apr 27, 2007 9:09:00 GMT -1
And Cav started it I told you there were brains in there somewhere!! Yes, it's all coming together! 1) Goes to Imperial, presumably therefore does a science subject. 2) Like all quality graduates does a soul-less but reasonably paid job. 3) Conscience kicks in and starts doing something socially beneficial. Just judging you for the sake of it Matthieu...! *lol pretty much correct but he did Politics at Uni shhhhh* |
|
|
|
Post by Neko Bazu on Apr 27, 2007 9:09:48 GMT -1
That picture isn't maths though. It's art. Somebody painted it. The artist themself used maths to paint it though. The shapes are mathematically perfect; something that doesn't happen by chance or by free-hand sketch (aside from Da Vinci's first art lesson, when he picked up a brush and painted a perfect circle - but there's always one exception to every rule). The art lies in the maths, not the painting - anyone can just paint shapes and call it art; look in the Tate Modern. Those are mathematically perfect, though, and a totally different idea. |
|
|
|
Post by Neko Bazu on Apr 27, 2007 9:11:55 GMT -1
it just strikes me as incomprehensible! And there is exactly what I've said. You don't understand it, so you don't appreciate it on the same level. There is beauty there. The fact that you don't see/understand it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and doesn't mean it has to be something else. |
|
|
|
Post by jh1980 on Apr 27, 2007 9:13:44 GMT -1
*lol pretty much correct but he did Politics at Uni shhhhh* Oh yes, I'd forgotten that... Ha! Social Scientists! Load of bunk! (and source of my "professionalism"  ) |
|
|
|
Post by Dr LuKas on Apr 27, 2007 9:18:28 GMT -1
Maths sucks the fun out of everything.
|
|
|
|
Post by jh1980 on Apr 27, 2007 9:19:24 GMT -1
it just strikes me as incomprehensible! And there is exactly what I've said. You don't understand it, so you don't appreciate it on the same level. There is beauty there. The fact that you don't see/understand it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and doesn't mean it has to be something else. I understand (understood?!) plenty of other bits of Maths, but they never struck me as being beautiful in the same way as a well-crafted sentence, a piece of sculpture or a catchy tune! I'm just different! And mocking the oppressed scientists! I think "beauty" is not the "mot juste" I suppose elegance might cover some aspects of mathematics, if I'm being generous...  |
|
|
|
Post by HURLOCK on Apr 27, 2007 9:21:34 GMT -1
boring |
|
Forever without exception. x
)
