|
FiddleTFM
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: Tyson
Country: United States
State: California
Metro: San Mateo
Gender: Male
Interests: astrophysics, Rubik's Cube, violin and piano, running, juggling, DuckTales, pointless things with no real value
Expertise: extrasolar planets, radial velocity techniques, formation of the solar system, stellar disks, blindfold Rubik's Cube solving
Occupation: Student
Industry: Research
Message: message me
Website: visit my website
AIM:  FiddleTFM
Yahoo:  psycho_tycho
Member Since:
1/19/2003
 Premium
|
|
| Seriously, another one of these? It does make sense that this is how things progress. Of course, I'm not saying I agree with it. There are many asymmetries in terms of genders, and some of these asymmetries we cannot overcome no matter how perfect our legislation is.
In terms of international child abductions, I wonder what percentage have the woman doing tho abduction, and what percentage have the man doing the abduction. If I had to make a market on the percentage of women being the initiator, I would have to be 85% bid at 92%, simply for the fact that I'd imagine in her home country, a woman would be able to make a stronger case for full custody of her child as opposed to a man. And the countries where this would most often happen is Japan, and in Japan, it's going to be the mother that wins the court case.
| | |
| Lemma: for natural numbers n and n+1, n and n+1 are relatively prime.
Proof: assume to the contrary, that n and n+1 are not relatively prime. That means they share some common factor together. Let's call this factor k. Therefore, we can represent the numbers n and n+1 as k*a and k*b. If a is not equal to be, then the closest interval that k*a and k*b can be together is k*a and k*(a+1) which is the interval k. The smallest value of this factor k is 2, which means n and n+1 cannot have distance 1. So n and n+1 are not relatively prime.
I'm sure my formal mathematical logic here isn't exactly proper, but I'm not a mathematician, but I think the idea behind this proof is correct. Let's continue to my point.
If n and n+1 are not relatively prime, then the least common multiple is going to be n*(n+1).
Lemma: for n > 3, this value is greater than 12.
Proof: pretty trivial. 4*5 = 20, so we're done here.
Lemma: for n greater than 12, sub-dividing 1/n in your head is a bitch.
Proof: try it.
Which means that, basically, playing 4 vs. 5 poly rhythms is pretty nasty. 5 vs. 6 more so, and 7 vs. 8 is just a what the hell.
So this proves that Samuel Barber's Excursions Op. 20 No. 3 is a bitch. Why the hell did he have to do that? That flats are bad enough...
| | |
| I'm hoping that Reno will be populated with a significant number of Asian Americans from the San Francisco Bay Area. The only thing hotter than a Taiwanese girl is a Taiwanese girl from the Bay Area who wants to live there, or one who would entertain the thought of moving to California.
But besides that, I am probably interested in playing a little bit of poker. Toby gave me and Victor a lesson, and I think I would avoid a lot of trouble that way.
I played the game Fat Princess today. I took me awhile before I figured everything out. And by the time I figured everything out, it was time to leave. But slaughter has never been as cute.
I think a few years ago at Reno, I caught a glimpse of a girl named Natasha Chen. I believe my cousin and I competed against her time and time again in the piano competition at the San Mateo County Fair. It really is a small world. I wonder if anything similar will happen again.
Running felt great today. It was hard not to run more, but I need to be disciplined in this rehabilitation.
They should teach probability in high school instead of calculus.
| | |
|
|
