- #386
DaveC426913
Gold Member
- 22,564
- 6,216
How awkward. All I want to do is change my notification from instant to daily. But I can't without posting a message...
Fantastic. And very true comment about the physics school teacher... Just enjoyed itAlbertEinstein said:I don't know if you have read this but then-
Why did the chicken cross the road?
Why did the chicken cross the road?
Aristotle: It is the nature of chickens to cross roads.
Isaac Newton: Chickens at rest tend to stay at rest, chickens in motion tend to cross roads.
Albert Einstein: Whether the chicken crossed the road or the road moved beneath the chicken depends on your frame of reference.
Werner Heisenberg: We are not sure which side of the road the chicken was on, but it was moving very fast.
Wolfgang Pauli: There already was a chicken on this side of the road.
Max Planck..Chicken can only cross road in fixed intervals of time, which are multiples of the fundamental time decided by dist, speed and size of chick...and no other times are allowed.
S. Chandrashekhar : Whether the chicken actually crossed the road can only be told by weighing it first and putting an upper limit to the mass in the integral of the road.
Eddington: Only two ppl on this entire Earth know how the chicken crossed the road. Einstein and me.
Stephen Hawking: we can explain this by moving the video of the motion of the chicken in the backward direction and study the beggining of its motion.
My Physics teacher: I cannot tell u that as it is beyond the scope of ur textbook.
Carl Jung: The confluence of events in the cultural gestalt necessitated that individual chickens cross roads. This brought such occurrences into being.
The Bible: And God came down from the heavens, and He said unto the chicken, "Thou shalt cross the road." And the Chicken crossed the road, and there was much rejoicing.
jk rowling:some body might have put the chicken under imperious curse.
I:Chicken cross the road since it knew..all above people were watching it and had to comment on it.
Here's a slight improvement to the punchline. The physicist tells him: 'Sure, but we will be close enough for all practical purposes'Gib Z said:A psychologist makes an experiment with a mathematician and a physicist. He puts a good-looking, naked woman in a bed in one corner of the room and the mathematician on a chair in another one, and tells him: 'I´ll half the distance between you and the woman every five minutes, and you´re not allowed to stand up.' the mathematician runs away, yelling: 'in that case, I´ll never get to this woman!'. After that, the psychologist takes the physicist and tells him the plan. The physicist starts grinning. the psychologist asks him: 'but you´ll never get to this woman?', the physicists tells him: 'sure, but for all practical things this is a good approximation.' (credit: Thomas Mayer)
No, Danger! I know this lady you speak of, and her name is Bright.Danger said:A limerick that I remember from some ancient book:
There was a young lady named Wright
Whose speed was far faster than light.
She set out one day,
In a relative way,
And returned on the previous night.
Gokul43201 said:No, Danger! I know this lady you speak of, and her name is Bright.
It's fairly well known. I think the first time I read it was in Newman's "The World of Mathematics."Danger said:Frankly, it's so old that I didn't expect anyone else to know it.
When, in the course of a proof, it becomes necessary for a set to dissolve the argument which has connected it with a theorem, and to assume among the powers of mathematics a position above that of the mathematician, a decent respect for the axioms requires that a rigorous justification be given.
We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all nonzero vectors are created equal; that they are endowed by their definer with certain unalienable rights; that among these are the laws of logic and the pursuit of valid proofs; that to secure these rights, logical arguments are created, deriving their just powers from axioms; that whenever any argument becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the vectors to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new argument, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to reach the correct conclusion. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that theorems long established should not be changed for light and transient causes, and accordingly all experience hath shown that sets are more disposed to accept the conclusions of arguments than to right themselves by abolishing the arguments. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them to zero in a non-trivial way, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such argument, and to provide new proofs for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these vectors, and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter these arguments. The history of Professor Eigen is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of dependence among these vectors. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
. . . .
Ivan Seeking said:Hey, this really IS funny. Have you ever looked in on a class of freshman physics students taking a test on vectors and cross products?
All of the contortions remind me of interpretive dance.
question = 0xFF; // optimized Hamlet
Ivan Seeking said:My dermatologist was telling me today that he is very popular: People are just itching to see him.
Ivan Seeking said:My dermatologist was telling me today that he is very popular: People are just itching to see him.
- History of the World, Part IOccupation?
I'm a stand-up philsopher
What's that?
I coelesce the vapors of human experience into a viable and comprehensible form.
Oh, you're a bullsh't artist! Did you bullsh't last week?
No.
Did you try to bullsh't last week?
Yes...