|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On 6/6/2011 12:06, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> But they're not *interesting* things.
They are in context, methinks. You have to read it, reflecting back on what
the Tortoise said.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |