Orchid XP v8 escreveu:
> On 06/06/2011 04:00 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> On 5/24/2011 1:10, Invisible wrote:
>>> A lot of people seem to think that Godel, Escher, Bach is some kind of
>>> iconic master work. After slogging through several chapters of dry, dull
>>> text, I eventually became so bored that I stopped reading it.
>>
>> Wow. I found most of the text fascinating.
> 
> I found it increadibly tedious. It's a bit like set theory; it says 
> things which are true, and unexpected. But they're not *interesting* 
> things. They're tiresome, pedantic hair-splitting things that nobody 
> actually cares about.
> 
> Complex analysis says "exp(i x) = cos(x) + i sin(x)". That is a 
> startlingly unexpected and beautiful result, which leads to all sorts of 
> interesting consequences.
> 
> Set theory says "X is a subset of X". And, yes, if you want to be 
> pedantic about it, A is a subset of B if every element of A is also an 
> element of B. And, strictly speaking, by that definition X *is* a subset 
> of X. But JESUS CHRIST, how dull is that? Talk about splitting hairs! >_<

sometimes you just don't sound like a math/computer geek at all. :p

those "tiresome, pedantic hair-splitting things that nobody actually 
cares about" are what advance the human race.  or not...

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message