For the discussion of math. Duh.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

Shokk
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:52 pm UTC

http://xkcd.com/55/

Let us treat the above linked comic as a given.
Facebook automatically the usage of "<3" in posts and treats it as a heart, as in "I heart New York".

However, my position is that it looks more like testicles.
That is to suggest that:
"heart" !=<3
Spoiler:
(love is not equal to or less than three)

"heart"=>3
Spoiler:
(Love is equal to or greater than three)

(The spoilers are for ambiguities in my notation, as I know not how to work the Latex stuff.)

So I put forth this ridiculous conjecture: Can it be said that any number less than three has balls?
Of course, I'm just being silly and I can't get from the given to this point, and surely can't offer a proper proof, but uhh...could I get some help, just for shits and giggles?
Or are matters of the heart not for the math boards?
I have a pair of pants.

Velifer
Posts: 1132
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 4:05 pm UTC
Location: 40ºN, 83ºW

Kids, let this be a lesson to you on the dangers of drinking and posting.
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies have nothing to lose but their chains -Marx

Ddanndt
Posts: 60
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 4:18 pm UTC
Location: Paris

Hey you owe me a minute of my life!!!!
God does not care about our mathematical difficulties — He integrates empirically.
—Albert Einstein

Shokk
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:52 pm UTC

What did I just do, does the given not even imply that?
Do I take it out or do I leave it in?
Can a Mod help me out here?
If it belongs in XKCD comic discussion you can move it and leave it there, or in the LSR boards [just joking], whichever's more appropriate.
It's out of my hands now.
I have a pair of pants.

dean.menezes
Posts: 135
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 3:47 am UTC

I think ε> (epsilon is greater than) looks more like a heart.

Timtu
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 5:58 am UTC

Velifer wrote:Kids, let this be a lesson to you on the dangers of drinking and posting.

I concur. The original poster probably pulled a few cones before arriving to his conjecture, no?

squareroot
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:04 am UTC
Contact:

dean.menezes wrote:I think ε> (epsilon is greater than) looks more like a heart.

Well, that depends on what epsilon you're using. It could either be the epsilon such that ε>0, and you're letting it go to zero, or epsilon such that ε>Reals, and it's the solution to the equation omega^ε=ε. These are at totally different ends of the spectrum... hmm...
<signature content="" style="tag:html;" overused meta />
Good fucking job Will Yu, you found me - __ -

Shokk
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:52 pm UTC

So which epsilon would imply that love or "heart" truly exists SOMEWHERE, be it on the complex plane, some algebraic ring, or something more wonky and fun.
I have a pair of pants.

snowyowl
Posts: 464
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 7:36 pm UTC

The last equation in the OP should be ♥ > 3, not ♥ >= 3.
The preceding comment is an automated response.

Shokk
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:52 pm UTC

snowyowl wrote:The last equation in the OP should be ♥ > 3, not ♥ >= 3.

What i mean would be greater than or equal to 3.
3 is a very special number in my heart. Because it looks kind of like buttocks no matter what. Even if you draw the top hump all sharp. It looks like an ass to me
I have a pair of pants.

Dason
Posts: 1311
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:06 am UTC
Location: ~/

Shokk wrote:Because it looks kind of like buttocks no matter what.

Well... not no matter what. If you use a lower base or represent it slightly differently (2.99999....) it doesn't look quite like a buttocks. But that's just me being picky.
double epsilon = -.0000001;

Sizik
Posts: 1243
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 3:48 am UTC

Dason wrote:
Shokk wrote:Because it looks kind of like buttocks no matter what.

Well... not no matter what. If you use a lower base or represent it slightly differently (2.99999....) it doesn't look quite like a buttocks. But that's just me being picky.

If you've seen the things I've seen...
gmalivuk wrote:
King Author wrote:If space (rather, distance) is an illusion, it'd be possible for one meta-me to experience both body's sensory inputs.
Yes. And if wishes were horses, wishing wells would fill up very quickly with drowned horses.

brakos82
Posts: 536
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:06 am UTC
Location: My happy place :)

I am Brakos, and I may or may not approve this message.

Shokk
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:52 pm UTC

Sizik wrote:
Dason wrote:
Shokk wrote:Because it looks kind of like buttocks no matter what.

Well... not no matter what. If you use a lower base or represent it slightly differently (2.99999....) it doesn't look quite like a buttocks. But that's just me being picky.

If you've seen the things I've seen...

Mmm, a binary butt wouldn't be too hard to at least imagine, now...a ternary butt, 10....well...
I have a pair of pants.