The Warwick Mathematics Society Website
Search
Navigation
User login
Upcoming events
We're 99% of the way toward our target of 500 members.
You can join up on the UWSU website.
Neutral Mathematicians
 Posted: Submitted by Xedi on 26 March 2008 - 10:37pm. |
|
Joined: 2007-10-03
Posts: 373 |
The other two topics are not a truly accurate representation of three possible potentials, and there's no point in creating a classification that doesn't work. |
|
Posted: 27 March 2008 - 2:09am |
|
Joined: 2006-11-02
Posts: 1004 |
Furthermore, "I am a studious mathematician" and "I am not an instudious mathematician" are both singular statements and thus meaningless. |
|
Posted: 27 March 2008 - 5:16pm |
|
Joined: 2007-02-14
Posts: 99 |
lol wut. |
|
Posted: 27 March 2008 - 7:22pm |
|
|
Joined: 2006-11-02
Posts: 1004 |
It's elementary pr0 theory: Pro Theory P.S. Why did someone unpublish "instudious mathematicians"?... The threads don't make sense now (stupid and evil singularity and stuff)! |
|
Posted: 27 March 2008 - 7:37pm |
|
|
Joined: 2007-10-03
Posts: 373 |
Meh, the person who unpublished the "Instudious mathematicians" thread clearly doesn't understand the trinity of creation. |
|
Posted: 27 March 2008 - 7:41pm |
|
|
Joined: 2006-11-02
Posts: 1004 |
Yes... Surely it's not too hard to understand that: All that be is 123. 1. Negative. 2. Positive. 3. Neutral. Simultaneously. |
|
Posted: 30 March 2008 - 6:47pm |
|
|
Joined: 2006-11-02
Posts: 1004 |
We have two negatives now since the instudious mathematicians has been republished. It looks like this website will never attain ultimate cubic balance. |