your guys names (question)

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Goldenking

On the contrary, it appears that, if we extend the lines back, they intersect at the Point of Derailment. Furthermore, these lines are non-coplanar, existing in the Plane of Topicality and the Plane of Infinite Spam; the Point of Derailment is the specific labeled area in this instance where this thread become non-topical. However, the intersection between two planes is a line, in this case the Line of Topical Drift, wherein some points on the line are subtle, and others are as severe as the Point of Derailment.

Nice try. However, you forget the fundamental axiom of the internet: When you compare the end result of a topic, t, to the initial post, t(i), you can find that the deviation of the topic can be graphed according to the equation t=abs(((t(i)*sin(t(i))/n(m)-2p^2))+P(ol)+R(el)+F(ur)+W(in)+G(frg)-M(od), where t=final content, t(i)=initial content, n(m)= number of members participating, p=average time in between posts, P(ol)=amount of politics in thread, R(el)= amount of religion in thread, F(ur)= furries in thread, W(in)=amount of OS/Internet browser heat in thread, G(frg)=Geneforge/Avernum strife, and M(od)= # of mod participants in thread, cubed. This results in a smooth sine curve wherein the level of topic drift gradulay grows, peaks, returns to topic, grows larger, peaks, etc. The cutoff point can be found by the second equation, (sqrt(M(num)+M(act)+T(act)-M(fun)-M(inv)))^D, where M(num) is the total number of mods, M(act) is the total number of active mods, T(act) is total number of active topics, M(fun) is the number of mods currently having fun, and M(inv) is the number of mods involved in said topic. Of course, the single most important factor is the D factor, which represents precisely how much crap/fake math you're willing to buy from Dantius. If you made it this far, it can be considered to be extremely high.

[Celtic Minstrel]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

They are skew lines- non-intersecting, and not coplanar.

Skew means non-parallel and non-coplanar.

Originally Posted By: Dantius

When you compare the end result of a topic, t, to the initial post, t(i),

You've already left the realm of math; t(i) implies that t is a function, yet you said it is the topic. And what would it be a function of, anyway?

Unless you mean you are multiplying the topic by the initial post, but that just doesn't make sense.

Originally Posted By: Dantius

Of course, the single most important factor is the D factor, which represents precisely how much crap/fake math you're willing to buy from Dantius. If you made it this far, it can be considered to be extremely high.

Nah, I was reading just for the amusement of seeing how fake your fake math was... which, as it turns out, is very fake.


Also, I can guarantee that Dantius did not double-post. Right, Dantius?

[llloyd]

You can argue with it's math, but not it's logic or ability to create said convoluted math that is based on nothing but the little internet stuff to math converter guy on it's shoulder that is a manafistation of it's brains need to convert stuff on the internet to loony(crazy(stupid)) math problems. thats the product of crazy and stupid times the loony factor, the end result showing how convoluted and whacky the math problems are.

 

My shoulder thing is about getting convoluted and longer than needed explanations that are completely ridiculous, example being like what i just wrote and probobly somewhere else in some other post of mine, but maybe not.

[Dantius]

Since I could not figure out how to write subscripts, I just used, say, T(i), when, in fact, it should be ti. Also, my double post was to complain about my post not showing up for five second. Thanks for mod power usage.

[Hypnotic]

Does that also mean t should be tf?

[Celtic Minstrel]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

Since I could not figure out how to write subscripts, I just used, say, T(i), when, in fact, it should be ti.

Ah, that would be ti. Or if I didn't have access to such tags, I would have written t_i or t instead.

[Student of Trinity]

In long papers one does sometimes begin to run short of variable names, even with full resort to both Greek and Roman alphabets, and brazen application of tildes, bars, primes, and subscripts. Calligraphic fonts are usually the last ditch, but now I'll keep in ultimate reserve the tactic of using REALLY BIG LETTERS.

[Alorael at Large]

Originally Posted By: Celtic Minstrel

Originally Posted By: Dantius

They are skew lines- non-intersecting, and not coplanar.

Skew means non-parallel and non-coplanar.

Parallel lines are necessarily coplanar, and coplanar lines must be either parallel or intersecting. Dantius's description isn't the standard for skew lines, but it's also correct.

—Alorael, who has tried to work out <relevance|thread> and given up.

[Kelandon]

Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity

In long papers one does sometimes begin to run short of variable names, even with full resort to both Greek and Roman alphabets, and brazen application of tildes, bars, primes, and subscripts. Calligraphic fonts are usually the last ditch, but now I'll keep in ultimate reserve the tactic of using REALLY BIG LETTERS.

I sometimes teach physics online, and I discovered to my delight at one point that the program actually accepted Unicode. If I run out of everything else, I can switch to Hebrew, and if that's no good, I can run through the entire Chinese character system. But really, the sky's the limit. Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics? Linear B? Sure, why not.

I mean, surely a Japanese character with a zodiac Sun symbol subscript has a place in physics.

[Celtic Minstrel]

Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity

In long papers one does sometimes begin to run short of variable names, even with full resort to both Greek and Roman alphabets, and brazen application of tildes, bars, primes, and subscripts. Calligraphic fonts are usually the last ditch, but now I'll keep in ultimate reserve the tactic of using REALLY BIG LETTERS.

What's wrong with reusing a symbol sometimes?

Originally Posted By: Alorael

Parallel lines are necessarily coplanar, and coplanar lines must be either parallel or intersecting. Dantius's description isn't the standard for skew lines, but it's also correct.

True, I guess.

[Randomizer]

Originally Posted By: Celtic Minstrel

Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity

In long papers one does sometimes begin to run short of variable names, even with full resort to both Greek and Roman alphabets, and brazen application of tildes, bars, primes, and subscripts. Calligraphic fonts are usually the last ditch, but now I'll keep in ultimate reserve the tactic of using REALLY BIG LETTERS.

What's wrong with reusing a symbol sometimes?

Symon's Mechanics had a long list at the end defining every variable symbol. Just the use of "a" took over a page with all the variations. It can be confusing to someone unfamilar with it.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Keladon

I mean, surely a Japanese character with a zodiac Sun symbol subscript has a place in physics.

I can't wait for the day where emoticons become a legitimate variable in mathematics.

And thus we see for the set, E, as it approaches infinity...

The "theta" symbol is broken. For some reason, it shows up in the edit box, but not in the post. I think Nalyd had the same problem with one of his PDN's one, too.

[The Mystic]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

I can't wait for the day where emoticons become a legitimate variable in mathematics.

They're not? I thought , , , and already were.

[llloyd]

they are, just like plus minus equals

 

ends my pseudo-math lesson for today

[Celtic Minstrel]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

I can't wait for the day where emoticons become a legitimate variable in mathematics.

What makes you think they aren't? Though, I'd be more inclined to use them as operators rather than variables. But maybe that's just me.

Really, you can use any symbol you want in math. You can even make up random squiggles if you need a new symbol.

[keira]

I'm going to tape candy to my homework and use them as variables.

[Ephesos]

In hindsight, I wish I'd done that with my calculus classes. Maybe small rocks instead of candy.

 

Heck, it would've been even better for general chemistry.

[Randomizer]

Originally Posted By: Celtic Minstrel

Really, you can use any symbol you want in math. You can even make up random squiggles if you need a new symbol.

If you are successful then other people will use them too.

[Alorael at Large]

Chemical bonding makes a lot more sense if you think of atoms as children and valence electrons as chocolate. Those p orbitals are probably not allowed because of potential allergies, though.

 

—Alorael, who now wonders what happens if one places a child's candy into a one-dimensional box

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Randomizer

Originally Posted By: Celtic Minstrel

Really, you can use any symbol you want in math. You can even make up random squiggles if you need a new symbol.

If you are successful then other people will use them too.

I believe that this explains the entirety of modern mathematics. Good job.