Trigonometry Redefined without Sines and Cosines

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

Holy shit. I took Geometry as a Freshman, Algebra II and Trig as a Sophomore, Pre-Calc as a Junior, and AP Calc as a Senior.

---

yeah, but you're a dumb nerd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

yeah, but you're a dumb nerd.

---

That's a contradiction in terms. Wait, that's too highbrow of a statement for you so let me "IP it" (dumb it down) for you:

THAT DON'T MAKE NO SENSE LOL WTF NEK HAIR!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

You can't be serious. Without literature there would be no proper grammar, spelling, etc. It's the same with painting, or sculpting; the rules for it, the styles, they don't develop in a vaccum.

---

I think he is talking about lit outside of writings about real things. I don't think Yoshi considers letters, journals, science papers, text books, manuals, or manuscripts to be Lit. He is probably talking about bullshit like Faust and Dante's Inferno

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

That's a contradiction in terms. Wait, that's too highbrow of a statement for you so let me "IP it" (dumb it down) for you:

THAT DON'T MAKE NO SENSE LOL WTF NEK HAIR!

---

it made 100% sense. Being a nerd does not make you smart. It only means you are smart in certain things.

Like I'm a nerd when it comes to say, Macross. And yet I'm dumb when it comes to writing.

Ass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

I think he is talking about lit outside of writings about real things. I don't think Yoshi considers letters, journals, science papers, text books, manuals, or manuscripts to be Lit. He is probably talking about bullshit like Faust and Dante's Inferno.

---

Without the literary tradition, which starts out not as scientific journals or manuscripts but as stories either concocted by the author or penned out to preserve the oral tradition in the new form of written word. Orwell handily proved that a very simplistic language could exist that was functional, but oppressive because it removed all the vocabulary and emotion that comes from literature's influence on the craft of writing. Thus, when any of us puts pen to paper or finger to key we owe it to Homer, Shakespeare, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

it made 100% sense. Being a nerd does not make you smart. It only means you are smart in certain things.

Like I'm a nerd when it comes to say, Macross. And yet I'm dumb when it comes to writing.

Ass.

---

LOL, you're a Macross nerd. Eat my feces, Micronian scum.

This mathematical "breakthrough" is bullshit. THIS is the one, true math :noob:


:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

Without the literary tradition, which starts out not as scientific journals or manuscripts but as stories either concocted by the author or penned out to preserve the oral tradition in the new form of written word. Orwell handily proved that a very simplistic language could exist that was functional, but oppressive because it removed all the vocabulary and emotion that comes from literature's influence on the craft of writing. Thus, when any of us puts pen to paper or finger to key we owe it to Homer, Shakespeare, etc.

---

I have serious doubts that early writing was developed for the creation of fiction. I am willing to bet that the first written languages started as a way to keep records of tools and how much grain was left after each meal. After that people probably started to record important historical and religious events. Only after that did people start to write fictional literature.

Written language would still be where it is today with out fiction. People need and want to write about real things. It would have evolved if only for that reason. Language would be just as colorful as it is today because it would need to mimic the way we talk to each other. People would want to record life in much the same way they experience it.

BTW, your first sentence, is not a complete thought.

P.S. Shakespeare is a worthless bastard and has done nothing for literature or the world. His plays are only good for quoting. And even then there are far more quoteable things, like Monty Python's Holy Grail.

hahah. i'm taking trigonometry this year. wait'll i show everyone the textbook is wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

I have serious doubts that early writing was developed for the creation of fiction.

---

Well you're wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

I am willing to bet that the first written languages started as a way to keep records of tools and how much grain was left after each meal. After that people probably started to record important historical and religious events. Only after that did people start to write fictional literature.

---

No, now you're talking about the origin of math and ways by which to represent value. With writing we see the primary focus being on recording history into what we call fiction but what was then merely indulgence of myth tinged with historical fact. Homer's Odyessy for example, a work that more than likely contains grains of truth but pounds of imagination. The Bible is another example, where historical events are recorded but colored with a mythological context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

Written language would still be where it is today with out fiction. People need and want to write about real things. It would have evolved if only for that reason. Language would be just as colorful as it is today because it would need to mimic the way we talk to each other. People would want to record life in much the same way they experience it.

---

This is a ridiculous notion. You're seemingly unable to understand that literature doesn't merely refer to fiction. Besides, on what grounds do you say that people 'need' and 'want' to write about real things? I say that people feel a need to write what they want to be remembered, what they want others to read. As to it being as 'colorful' without literature, that's possibly the stupidest non-point you've made today. I can only hope that in retrospect you'll see how wrong it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

BTW, your first sentence, is not a complete thought.

---

Your one good point. Yes, I made a mistake. That makes the tally:

IP: 3,450,608,900
g0zen: 1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

P.S. Shakespeare is a worthless bastard and has done nothing for literature or the world. His plays are only good for quoting. And even then there are far more quoteable things, like Monty Python's Holy Grail.

---

And with this statement you should cement how completely moronic you are in the minds of any hold outs here who might have thought you otherwise. Every TV show, every book, and without a doubt every movie you've ever watched and liked takes from Shakespeare in one way or another.

LOL @ Ironplant trying to argue a point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

If you drive a car, you're wrong. Literature, on the other hand, doesn't do shit.

---

I'd say it does for me what trig and cal do for you. :)

All the theory, equations, formulas, and crap in those classes has never served me a wit of purpose. Do you apply those concepts in practice in things like driving? Perhaps, just like people apply metaphors and similes, etc in daily life without ever having taken a literature class.

I'd say that anyone who thinks literature is useless is just frustrated at their inability to comprehend it. How you can stroke your cock about being big-brained about math while downplaying the importance of literature is simply LOL.