myslsl

joined 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] 57 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Deconstructed calzone. Very rare and exotic.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 months ago

Wow. How fucking dare you? I trusted you.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 3 months ago (6 children)

The humble knifoon remains forgotten :(

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago (3 children)

I'm sorry my mom called you "pretty fucking dumb". I know that must have hurt your feelings.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago (5 children)

This feels pretty fucking dumb.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

So you're saying that because a religion allows you to choose which of God's commandments, carefully passed down through every generation, you personally want to follow based on your gut feeling, can't be shamed?

No, that is not what I said.

Why should the ones who choose to deny parts of their religion be seen as representative of it over those who've chosen to uphold them?

I definitely answered this in my original comment.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Because if the majority of people following a particular religion reject a prior view as false or wrong, then arguably that view is no longer part of the religion.

Religions aren't crisp, unchanging, monolithic entities where everybody believes the same thing forever. If we're talking about judaism in the sense of the views and practices jewish people actually subscribe to, then that seems like we are referring to beliefs they actually hold in a mainstream/current sense, not beliefs they previous held but now reject?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

This seems a little hyperbolic of you.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Ain't nothin' but a heartache.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

The punchline here is a little compact. I don't feel like it really gives the closure I need. Maybe if the basis for the joke had more continuity the humor would be less discrete.

...Just kidding.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

i has nice real world analogues in the form of rotations by pi/2 about the origin (though this depends a little bit on what you mean by "real world analogue").

Since i=exp(ipi/2), if you take any complex number z and write it in polar form z=rexp(it), then multiplication by i yields a rotation of z by pi/2 about the origin because zi=rexp(it)exp(ipi/2)=rexp(i(t+pi/2)) by using rules of exponents for complex numbers.

More generally since any pair of complex numbers z, w can be written in polar form z=rexp(it), w=uexp(iv) we have wz=(ru)exp(i(t+v)). This shows multiplication of a complex number z by any other complex number w can be thought of in terms of rotating z by the angle that w makes with the x axis (i.e. the angle v) and then scaling the resulting number by the magnitude of w (i.e. the number u)

Alternatively you can get similar conclusions by Demoivre's theorem if you do not like complex exponentials.

view more: next ›