I'm wondering how it ended up in this thread...
Because we have brainy boobies that can kill you?
Inara: So, explain to me again why Zoe wasn't in the dress? Mal: Tactics, woman. Needed her in the back. 'Sides, those soft cotton dresses feel kinda nice. It's the whole... air-flow.
'Our Mrs. Reynolds'
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.
SailAweigh - Jan 10, 2005 9:41:31 am PST #323 of 10001
Nana korobi, ya oki. (Fall down seven times, stand up eight.) ~Yuzuru Hanyu/Japanese proverb
beathen - Jan 10, 2005 9:48:05 am PST #324 of 10001
Sure I went over to the Dark Side, but just to pick up a few things.
They must be evil twins. (unlike The Evil Twins named Mary-Kate & Ashley)
DavidS - Jan 10, 2005 10:01:52 am PST #325 of 10001
"Look, son, if it's good enough for Shirley Bassey, it's good enough for you."
obscure
Not so obscure that it wasn't referenced on this board, this very day.
billytea "Spike's Bitches 21 Gunn Salute" Jan 10, 2005 12:33:02 am PST
KernelM - Jan 10, 2005 10:03:15 am PST #326 of 10001
Ankh-Morpork Watchman, Dreamer, Scooby, Minister of Grace, Still Flyin' in a Zoo2 World
eta²: There are infinitely many integers > 0, but there are infinitely many real numbers between 0 and 1. So the number of real numbers is a higher order infinity (or something) than the number of integers.
Yes, there are more real numbers than integers, but that argument doesn't really work. There's also infinitely many rational numbers between 0 and 1, but in fact there are an equal number of integers and rational numbers.
Also? What would transcendental or surreal boobies be like? Discrete/continuous/differentiable/analytic boobies?
-t - Jan 10, 2005 10:07:14 am PST #327 of 10001
I am a woman of various inclinations and only some of the time are they to burn everything down in frustration
Do you want me to explain why there are more real numbers than integers? 'Cause I'll do it, don't think I won't.
SailAweigh - Jan 10, 2005 10:08:53 am PST #328 of 10001
Nana korobi, ya oki. (Fall down seven times, stand up eight.) ~Yuzuru Hanyu/Japanese proverb
What would transcendental or surreal boobies be like? Discrete/continuous/differentiable/analytic boobies?
A boobie is a boobie is a boobie. Unless it's blue-footed and then it's a bird.
victor infante - Jan 10, 2005 10:09:05 am PST #329 of 10001
To understand what happened at the diner, we shall use Mr. Papaya! This is upsetting because he's the friendliest of fruits.
I'm wondering how it ended up in this thread...
Well, you know, once the boobies invade, you can never go back. Take Janet Jackson, for example...
tommyrot - Jan 10, 2005 10:10:24 am PST #330 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.
I wanna see this:
in fact there are an equal number of integers and rational numbers.
explained. Because it seems to me that the set of all integers would be a non-trivial subset of the set of all rational numbers.
eta: Oh, I found a proof: [link]
eta2: It says
The set Q of all rational numbers is equivalent to the set N of all integers.
Does "equivelent" here mean the same thing as "there are an equal number"? I don't think so....
KernelM - Jan 10, 2005 10:25:46 am PST #331 of 10001
Ankh-Morpork Watchman, Dreamer, Scooby, Minister of Grace, Still Flyin' in a Zoo2 World
Whew, saved me from typing out a whole lot of stuff. They're just using lazy notation. Usually, equivalent in mathematics means isomorphic, which has different meanings in different contexts.
Now, if you really want to get your mind blown, look at the Banach-Tarski Paradox or the Continuum Hypothesis.
-t - Jan 10, 2005 10:31:23 am PST #332 of 10001
I am a woman of various inclinations and only some of the time are they to burn everything down in frustration
Does "equivelent" here mean the same thing as "there are an equal number"? I don't think so....
You can put them into a one-to-one correspondence, which can be thought of as having the same number. Counting things is just a matter of putting the things in question into a one-to-one corespondence with a set of known ordinality (like the natural numbers less than or equal to 10, for example). This is an extension of that concept into the infinite realm. One definition of an infinite set is a set that can be put into a one-to-one correspondence with a proper subset of itself.
My unfinished master's thesis was on Georg Cantor. I can go on and on.