Reply With Quote
Holy 5 pages?
That's not true. I completely ignore some people. I don't respond to everything. Then there are a few chosen ones that have placed themselves in the unique position of being ones I do like to taunt. Baseless bum just happens to be one I like to taunt. When I saw the quote in his signature, I had to correct it. I was amazed he kept giving incorrect information to the origin of the quote. I decided to have fun with Sperminator's question. Figured I would see if someone else tried to make it more complex that it was.
As for insecurity? I'm not. I do allow myself to vent here though rather than the people i know personally. There are three people I deal with at work who I simply cannot stand. The longer I am in proximity with them, the more I need to vent, one way or another.
Holy 5 pages?
I got 45
Should h+ave been written as:
(48/2)*(9+3) = 24*12 = 288
The quote is correct. What incorrect information did I give? It was a (very) short poem in response to Erdos finding an elementary proof of Bertrand's Postulate. I'm amazed that even you would nitpick over two completely equivalent instantiations of the theorem. You're like a 12 year-old.
yeah, you are, clearly. i've encountered enough insecure people in my life to know one when i see one. i don't know if you're short or not, but you clearly have little man syndrome.
No, he just reads a wiki page and think hes got all the tools to talk on any discipline. If you call it on him in a way he cannot weasel out of and do not let it go then he will put you on ignore and then read another wiki page.
LOL...
That fits one of the people at work I dislike.
What do you consider your actions?
Ever think I just like to taunt jackasses?
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 04-10-2011 at 05:11 PM.
I simply pointed out from the Nathan Fine quote in your sig needed it stated that N>1. You disagreed, referring to Erdo's findings which were a revision of Bertrand's. However, your idea of between and mine are in conflict. I proved my point when it came to the postulate, and you didn't. Remember when I said "Just remember. You are quoting Nathan Fine. Not Bertrand, Chebyshev, or Erdos?" You accuse me of knowing better than Erdos, when I never implied any such thing.
What's the problem? Take your time, review the thread. You will see I was never wrong.
Actually, I have no idea why I was amazed your nitpicking; I should know better by now.
I corrected the quote, and you nitpicked.
Double checked the wiki page I see.
You should stick with shooting Mexicans at the border.
LOL...
Changing the subject huh...
Might as well when you're a brick wall on any reasonable subject.
Wild Cobra argues with more professionals in their own field than anyone I've ever seen. Its amazing.
division and multiplication are of the same rank, so you just go left from right. PEMDAS is misleading. 288 es.
I agree with BB about postfix fixing this all:
48 2 / 9 3 + *= 288
....I believe its simply the linear function f (x) = 24(x) with g(x) = (9 + 3)....
its an odd function with x and y intercepts at (0,0)...
Duncan288
There are no variables given.
this thread should have only had three responses max.
the wrong answer, the right answer, and why the right answer is right.
it should not have gotten this far.
Last edited by The Reckoning; 04-11-2011 at 03:10 AM.
This.
On a side note, I can't believe that this thread is over 130 replies and counting. I'm actually kinda scared to see what responses I'd get if asked around. Mebbe I'll start with the physicians and go from there.
288
Interesting thread.
Which experts have I argued with, as in a disagreement, that wasn't just a misunderstanding?
Yes, I am occasionally wrong, but example please.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions