Girls are Evil

[jahcs]

But since evil is negative, all we can conclude from this is that evil<-1, since any negative number <-1 is even more negative when cubed.
[right][snapback]77165[/snapback][/right]

Men are said to be slaves to baser urges. Baser urges are not normally quantified as good or evil. If women are proven to be evil what does that leave for us then? :o

[Occhidiangela]

Men are said to be slaves to baser urges.&nbsp; Baser urges are not normally quantified as good or evil.&nbsp; If women are proven to be evil what does that leave for us then? :o
[right][snapback]77172[/snapback][/right]

The urge to get to first baser?

Maybe all their baser belong to us? (We wish!)

Occhi

[BrianLeichty35]

Once upon a time (1/t), pretty little Polly Nomial was strolling across a field of vectors, when she came to the edge of a singularly large matrix. Now Polly was convergent, and her mother had made it an absolute condition that she must never enter such an array without her brackets on. Polly, however, had changed her variables that morning, and, feeling particularly badly behaved, she ignored this condition on the grounds that it was insufficient, and made her way in amongst the complex elements.

Rows and columns enveloped her on all sides. Tangents approached her surface. She became tensor and tensor. Quite suddenly, three branches of a hyperbola touched her at a single point. She oscillated violently, lost all sense of directrix, and went completely divergent. As she reached a turning point, she tripped over a square root which was protruding from the erf, and plunged headlong down a steep gradient. When she was differentiated once more, she found herself, apparently alone, in a non-euclidean space.

She was being watched however. That smooth operator, Curly Pi, was lurking inner product. As his eyes devoured her curvilinear coordinates, a singular expression crossed his face. Was she still convergent, he wondered. He decided to integrate improperly at once.

Hearing a vulgar function behind her, Polly turned round, and saw Curly Pi approaching with his power series extrapolated. She could see at once, by his degenerate conic and his dissipative terms, that he was bent on no good.

"Eureka" she gasped.

"Ho, ho!" he said. "What a symmetric little polynomial you are. I can see that you are absolutely bubbling over with secs".

"Sir", she said, "keep away from me. I haven't got my brackets on.

"Calm yourself my dear" said our suave operator, "your fears are purely imaginary".

"i, i" she thought. "Perhaps he's homogeneous then?".

"What order are you?" the brute demanded.

"Seventeen", replied Polly.

Curly leered. "I suppose you've never been operated on yet?" he said.

"Of course not" Polly cried indignantly. "I'm absolutely convergent".

"Come, cone," said Curly. "Lets off to a decimal place I know, and I'll take you to the limit".

"Never" gasped Polly.

His patience was gone. Coshing her over the coefficient with a log until she was powerless, Curly removed her discontinuities. He stared at her significant places and began to smooth her points of inflexion. Poor Polly. All was lost. She felt his hand bonding to her asymptotic limit. Her convergence would be gone for ever.

There was no mercy, for Curly was a heavyside operator. He integrated by parts. He integrated by partial fractions. The complex beast even went all the way round, and did a contour integration. What an indignity! Curly went on operating until he was completely and absolutely orthogonal.

When Polly got hone that evening, her mother noticed that she had been truncated in several places. But it was too late to differentiate now --- the seeds having been sown. As the months went by, Polly increased monotonically. Finally, she generated a small, but pathological, function, which left surds all over the place, until she was driven to distraction.

The moral of this sad story is this: It you want to keep your expressions convergent, never allow them a single degree of freedom.
I wish I could take credit for that.&nbsp; I first saw it on bash.org and have seen it in various other places since then.&nbsp; The original author seems to be Richard A. Gibbs.

This was very educational during my recently completed calc 2 class.
[right][snapback]77086[/snapback][/right]

ROTFLMAO :lol:

[BrianLeichty35]

Where is Dr. Bunson Honeydew when we need him...

He could invent something that could measure consistancy in a woman. Knowing Honeydew, and knowing women, the contraption would prolly explode, doing something horrible to Beaker. Like turning him into a woman or something.
[right][snapback]76993[/snapback][/right]

How do you know Beaker wasn't already one? :huh: :lol:

[NiteFox]

Money is not the root of all evil, credit is. :P
[right][snapback]76936[/snapback][/right]

Nope, it's neither.

The correct Biblical quote mangled by centuries of ignorance is "the love of money is the root of all evil."

[Obi2Kenobi]

In that case, the equation could start off with love of girls=time*money, since that's what's (allegedly) required. In the last equation, the love of part would cancel out, so the final result is the same, no?

[Munkay]

The correct Biblical quote mangled by centuries of ignorance is "the love of money is the root of all evil."

"Mangled by centuries of ignorance" is a rather harsh analysis. You do understand that it does not correlate to only exactly one phrase in English? The ancient Greek can be translated with some variance.

The actual line is rhiza gar pantôn tôn kakôn estin hê philarguria

For the love of money is the root of all evil is pretty close. For example a very frequent problem is the word kakôn specifically means wickedness (in relation to wicked acts). True, it's close to the English word Evil, but the actual ancient word does not carry the same heavy connotation. The ancient Greek language does not have a word for evil, there is no entity of evil, only acts that are "wicked" or phrased differently: "not good." Hence translating it becomes an exercise in frustration, since it's nearly impossible to get the same sense the original greek had.

For the sake of this discussion, philarguria can be translated as a love of money, but it can also mean more broadly covetousness.

In context,

VI. Let as many as are bondservants under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and the doctrine not be blasphemed.&nbsp; [2]&nbsp; Those who have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brothers, but rather let them serve them, because those who partake of the benefit are believing and beloved. Teach and exhort these things.&nbsp; [3]&nbsp; If anyone teaches a different doctrine, and doesn't consent to sound words, the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness,&nbsp; [4]&nbsp; he is conceited, knowing nothing, but obsessed with arguments, disputes, and word battles, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions,&nbsp; [5]&nbsp; constant friction of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. Withdraw yourself from such.&nbsp; [6]&nbsp; But godliness with contentment is great gain.&nbsp; [7]&nbsp; For we brought nothing into the world, and we certainly can't carry anything out.&nbsp; [8]&nbsp; But having food and clothing, we will be content with that.&nbsp; [9]&nbsp; But those who are determined to be rich fall into a temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful lusts, such as drown men in ruin and destruction.&nbsp; [10]&nbsp; For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some have been led astray from the faith in their greed, and have pierced themselves through with many sorrows

(Full translation here, including the ancient Greek)

It's not entirely clear that one definition is better than the other: The love of money, or the love of material goods in general?

I hope you can see that its rather hard to translate correctly, and it will always be up for dispute. And if its up to dispute among scholars, I find it hard to justify a claim that it's "mangled by centuries of ignorance." It's never been unmangled in the first place!

The philogist in me just couldn't help but put in my 2 cents :P

Cheers,

Munk