When I saw Proof on Broadway, I was one of about three people who laughed at the line "We have a song called i where we just stand there on stage for three minutes not playing."

I've got a few minutes to kill - anyone have a link to the proof? What is that equation called, anyway?

When I saw Proof on Broadway, I was one of about three people who laughed at the line "We have a song called i where we just stand there on stage for three minutes not playing."

Heh.

Guess I would have laughed too.

Hey! It's Abby!

Who I still don't think of as a lurker, as I know she's real, and as her occasional postings date back to WX at least.

(I still say that what Cybervixen said was true, that once you delurk, you're pretty much lurkless. This is how I justify not thinking of myself as a lurker despite a greatly reduced posting schedule.)

I'm not even going to ask what makes that pretty.

e lives over there, with the logarithms, naturally, and π is over there with the geometry (they're both irrational and don't play well with others), and -1, well, it's right here with the everyday numbers. Don't even ask where i lives -- it's complex.

Yet? Together? They all make each other. As a maths student, there was absolutely no reason to expect these to be the pieces in the jigsaw puzzle, but working through that proof is like having a jigsaw puzzle that's solving itself and dragging you along with it and bam! Suddenly the pieces snap together and you know the picture for the first time.

You might not understand the picture, but it sure is purty,

tommy, it's Euler's Identity (or according to Feynman, "The most remarkable formula in mathematics").

Timelies all!

I did well in pretty much all the math classes I took.(which was through third semester calculus in college) Math just didn't interest me enough to go farther. Not to mention that my schedule was full of major-related classes.(Odd fact: I was one class away from a Chem minor. Unfortunately, that class was PChem. I didn't want to go near it)

God, I may be a dork. From scanning the wikipedia page, I found an old tagline of mine:

that is surely true, it is absolutely paradoxical; we cannot understand it, and we don't know what it means. But we have proved it, and therefore we know it must be the truth

God, I may be a dork. From scanning the wikipedia page, I found an old tagline of mine:

What's funny is that (IIRC) you took that tagline from a post of mine, where I was quoting it (dunno if it was from wikipeida or someplace else).

Fuck me. What's my damn problem? I just picked at the scab again.

In response to the Broadsheet blog entry about the asshat who dismissed Dowd's book with the sneer that she's clearly eaten up with spinster bitterness over the fact that "Women have expiration dates and men don't," there's this letter:

That John Ross has written a post in response to Maureen Dowd's recent anti male diatribe is amusing to a 49 year old Grandfather and Father of 5. I married young my first marriage. Didn't want children in my second marriage at 40. John is merely articulating biology. That Feminists so many believed and made a life and career during their prime years of Fecundity is not John Ross's fault it is the women's. I have two daughters my oldest married young and has 3 Sons of her own. Women's eggs are most fertile when they are young. It also lessens the issue of birth defects and gives Women an opportunity to raise children and after they go off to school to resume a career.

Women who follow this life script based upon biology rather than a PC way of living articulated by Lesbians are more likely to have a successful family and a happy husband. Building a life together is what relationships that last are all about. I have observed this from my 80 year old Father and my Mother. They are still in love after 50 years.

Make these people go away and STOP READING MY MAGAZINE. Also, make me STOP READING THEIR LETTERS. Gah!!!!1!