I think Objects in Space is worth four!. Out of Gas ? I don't know. At least six!. Perhaps eight or ten, but I hate to be extravagant.
I just think you're freakin' out 'cause you have to fight someone prettier than you.
Dawn ,'The Killer In Me'
Firefly 4: Also, we can kill you with our brains
Discussion of the Mutant Enemy series, Firefly, the ensuing movie Serenity, and other projects in that universe. Like the other show threads, anything broadcast in the US is fine; spoilers are verboten and will be deleted if found.
libkitty - Jan 09, 2005 3:42:56 pm PST #270 of 10001
Embrace the idea that we are the leaders we've been looking for. Grace Lee Boggs
tommyrot - Jan 09, 2005 3:45:11 pm PST #271 of 10001
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.
Well, whatever the maximum number of !, Out of Gas should have one more. Maybe Objects in Space too....
Gris - Jan 09, 2005 3:53:34 pm PST #272 of 10001
Hey. New board.
One ! is clearly acceptable.
If n !'s are acceptable, n+1 !'s are also acceptable.
Therefore, by induction, both OiS and OoG can acceptably have an infinite number of !'s.
tommyrot - Jan 09, 2005 4:00:32 pm PST #273 of 10001
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.
Except OoG should be able to have ∞+1 !'s.
Gris - Jan 09, 2005 4:03:23 pm PST #274 of 10001
Hey. New board.
Except OoG should be able to have ∞+1 !'s.
I'm not sure the induction hypothesis allows for uncountable infinties. You'll need to prove that by a more rigorous method. I'm thinking a proof by contradiction is almost sure to be your best bet.
"Assume OoG can only have a countable number of !'s, reasonably..."
You can take it from there.
KernelM - Jan 09, 2005 5:25:16 pm PST #275 of 10001
Ankh-Morpork Watchman, Dreamer, Scooby, Minister of Grace, Still Flyin' in a Zoo2 World
You need to use transfinite induction just to get the first conclusion that you can get a countably infinite number of !s. Otherwise, regular induction only tells you that any finite number of !s is acceptable.
For an uncountable number of !s, yes, contradiction might work.
Maybe some kind of triangulation argument.
DavidS - Jan 09, 2005 5:28:37 pm PST #276 of 10001
"Look, son, if it's good enough for Shirley Bassey, it's good enough for you."
This is a very Buffista discussion, I must say. All prompted by my casual comment about the necessary number of !s, and what is an extravagence. In short, not what was possible, but what was appropriate. What was in good taste. Where less is more. I say put on all the exclamation points you want, then look in the mirror and take one off.
SailAweigh - Jan 09, 2005 5:29:47 pm PST #277 of 10001
Nana korobi, ya oki. (Fall down seven times, stand up eight.) ~Yuzuru Hanyu/Japanese proverb
We don't want !s with good taste, Hec. We want !s that taste good.
Ginger - Jan 09, 2005 5:36:55 pm PST #278 of 10001
"It didn't taste good. It tasted soooo horrible. It tasted like....a vodka martini." - Matilda
That depends on what you've spilled on your keyboard.
SailAweigh - Jan 09, 2005 5:46:06 pm PST #279 of 10001
Nana korobi, ya oki. (Fall down seven times, stand up eight.) ~Yuzuru Hanyu/Japanese proverb
That depends on what you've spilled on your keyboard.
Don't you mean spit on your keyboard?