"Galimatias" wrote in message
news:334zkf7jheofd2n.181220041027@127.0.0.1...
> Mark Addinall wrote:
>> "Galimatias" wrote in message
>> news:7huv1wqowvy15c1.171220042233@127.0.0.1...
>>> Mark Addinall wrote:
>>>> "Galimatias" wrote in message
>>>> news:j1hr6rb6tm4c15g.171220042123@127.0.0.1...
>>>>> Proteus wrote:
>>>>>> Ask
>>>>>
>>>>> OK. How may holes in a crumpet?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 42.
>>>>
>>>> Mark (true-blue) Addinall
>>>>
>>>> Now I wait for noddy to buy a pack of crumpets and try to count
>>>> the holes. Triumphantly declaring WRONG! Therebye proving he
>>>> is a member of the MISTER RICE and dose damn bleks should be
>>>> gratefull for the crumpets!
>>>
>>> He who asserts must prove. Please post proof of your claim that a
>>> crumpet has 42 holes. BTW, deep and meaningful philosophical
>>> references cut no ice.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> 1.. Proof by Obviousness: "The proof is so clear that it need not be
>> mentioned."
>> 2.. Proof by General Agreement: "All in Favor?..."
>>
>> 3.. Proof by Imagination: "Well, We'll pretend its true."
>> 4.. Proof by Convenience: "It would be very nice if it were true,
>> so ..."
>>
>> 5.. Proof by Necessity: "It had better be true or the whole
>> structure of mathematics would crumble to the ground."
>> 6.. Proof by Plausibility: "It sounds good so it must be true."
>>
>> 7.. Proof by Intimidation: "Don't be stupid, of course it's true."
>> 8.. Proof by Lack of Sufficient Time: "Because of the time
>> constraint, I'll leave the proof to you."
>>
>> 9.. Proof by Postponement: "The proof for this is so long and
>> arduous, so it is given in the appendix."
>> 10.. Proof by Accident: "Hey, what have we here?"
>>
>> 11.. Proof by Insignificance: "Who really cares anyway?"
>> 12.. Proof by Mumbo-Jumbo: " For any epsilon> 0 there exists a
>> corresponding delta > 0 s.t. f(x)-L < epsilon whenever x-a < delta"
>>
>> 13.. Proof by Profanity: (example omitted)
>> 14.. Proof by Definition: "We'll define it to be true."
>>
>> 15.. Proof by Tautology: "It's true because it's true."
>> 16.. Proof by Plagiarism: "As we see on page 238 ..."
>>
>> 17.. Proof by Lost Reference: "I know I saw this somewhere ..."
>> 18.. Proof by Calculus: "This proof requires calculus, so we'll
>> skip it."
>>
>> 19.. Proof by Terror: When intimidation fails ...
>> 20.. Proof by Lack of Interest: "Does anyone really want to see
>> this?"
>>
>> 21.. Proof by Illegibility: " ¥ ª Ð Þ þæ"
>> 22.. Proof by Logic: "If it is on the problem sheet, then it must be
>> true."
>>
>> 23.. Proof by Majority Rule: Only to be used if General Agreement is
>> impossible.
>> 24.. Proof by Clever Variable Choice: "Let A be the number such
>> that this proof works."
>>
>> 25.. Proof by Tessellation: "This proof is just the same as the
>> last."
>> 26.. Proof by Divine Word: "And the Lord said, 'Let it be true,'
>> and it came to pass."
>>
>> 27.. Proof by Stubbornness: "I don't care what you say! It is true!"
>> 28.. Proof by Simplification: "This proof reduces to the statement,
>> 1 + 1 = 2."
>>
>> 29.. Proof by Hasty Generalization: "Well, it works for 17, so it
>> works for all reals."
>> 30.. Proof by Deception: "Now everyone turn their backs ..."
>>
>> 31.. Proof by Supplication: "Oh please, let it be true."
>> 32.. Proof by Poor Analogy: "Well, it's just like ..."
>>
>> 33.. Proof by Avoidance: Limit of Proof by Postponement as t
>> approaches infinity.
>> 34.. Proof by Design: "If it's not true in today's math, invent a
>> new system in which it is."
>>
>> 35.. Proof by Intuition: "I just have this gut feeling ..."
>> 36.. Proof by Authority: "Well, Bill Gates says it's true, so it
>> must be."
>>
>> 37.. Proof by Vigorous Assertion: "And I REALLY MEAN THAT!"
>> 38.. Proof by A.F.K.T. Theorem: "Any Fool Knows That!"
>>
>> 39.. Proof by vigorous handwaving: Works well in a classroom.
>> 40.. Proof by seduction: "Convince yourself that this is true!"
>>
>> 41.. Proof by accumulated evidence: "Long and diligent search has
>> not revealed a counterexample."
>> 42.. Proof by Divine Intervention: "Then a miracle occurs ..."
>>
>> Which would you like?
>
> I have a choice? Ok. Wrong, by incorrect attribution.
>
>

Everyone has a point Obli-Do.

Given a crumpet MUST have holes, otherwise, a crumpet be it not, rather
soggy bread, AND
the number of the holes must be more than one, for a crumpet with but one
hole, is a
bland doughnut, ergo, the lower bound for n, n = 2. The upper bound for n
is somewhat
more problamatic, the diameter of the said holes, given n = 2 needs to be
less than one half
the diameter of the crumpet, lest the crumpet do some spooky quantum
thingammy,
and we want none of that at the breakfast table my lad. SO let the diameter
of the crumpet
be D, then, the diameter of the holes can be assumed to be < 1/2 . D. What
constitutes a hole?
The measure of space between the atoms of a crumpet is easily enough
calculated (in
an emperical, rather than a quantum model) but does this space constitute a
whole hole?

This question deserved some research, and in usual manner, I approached the
definition with
some gusto for research, and,

"So last night, I went to this supermarket that I don't normally go to get
my weekly grub.
I always have crumpets on my list, I love a good crumpet in the morning with
my coffee and/or fruit juice.
It's just something that I do.
Anyway. I thought that a crumpet was a crumpet was a crumpet. My god, how
wrong I was. I picked up this 'Quality Bakers'
packet from the bakery department, not thinking that it would be any
different than the ones I normally have.
5 minutes ago I'm sitting here bored out of my skull and decide it must be
time for a snack. Crack out the toaster, grab
the butter from the fridge (good crumpets must be buttered no more than 10
seconds after popping from the toaster),
and open this packet of crumpets I've got.
These things are flat, a bright white colour, and they've got like 4-5 holes
in the top each only.

WHAT. THE. FUCK.

What the hell good is a crumpet with such a pathetic amount of holes!?
They sure as hell ain't fluffy, they're like this doughy consistancy, and
when you toast the buggers they don't
get all crisp even after 2 goes through the toaster on full blast!

Moral of the story - 'Quality Bakers' Crumpets = shit, 'Golden' Crumpets =
Oh my fucking god my taste buds are having an orgasm.
I am one pissed off goddamn motherfucker.
This is how Osama Bin-Laden got started you know. The twin towers would
still be there if they didnt fuck around with the mans crumpets."

It would seem that five holes is not regarded well. This lifts our number
of holes from a lower bound of n=2
to the lower bound of acceptability of "crumpetness, to n > 5.

Upon further investigation:

"Crumpets are British griddle cakes. The batter is poured in metal rings,
and when the cakes have set, the rings
are removed so that the crumpets can be turned over. Crumpets have large
holes"

Ah HA! Crumpets have LARGE holes! Now we are getting somewhere. How
large?

They need to be large enough to SEE, or feel with a digit I suppose (for the
visually impaired),
that leads us into cognesis, which Tom is the spurt, myself a mere beginner.
Can we agree that
LARGE (Vis. large enough to define as a "hole" as one one hundreth of the
total crumpet surface
area on one plane (top - front)?

This seems to define our iterative bounderies, whereas, the hole number n
(sic), must be larger than
5 to satisfy the "It isn't a crumpet" criteria and less than, or equal to
100, where at such a point
the "holes" cease to exist as "meaningful "holes.

Now with some confidence we may delve into the little used library of
"algorithms" and suggest:
using the Newton-Raphson Iteration. To find a root f(x) = 0 given one
initial approximation
p_0 and using the iteration

Let k = dx(lower bound,...,upper bound)

f(p_(k-1))
p_k = p_(k-1) - ----------- for k = 6, 7, ... 100
f'(p_(k-1))

seems to round at 42.0006591

suggesting, that a crumpet, that meets all criteria of "crumpetness", has
approx.
42 servicable "holes".

It should be noted that this is theory and a Markove/Monte Carlo predictive
run would be
usefull after emperic statistical sampling.

I hope that helped.

Mark (true-blue) Addinall

addendum: Never, ever, ever, ever, sell an accounting system to a
commercial crumpet
maker. Nice folk they are, but consider the time they do the bookeeping,
and when they
require software support.

>

From:	Galimatias
Subject:	Re: Repost from elsewhere: Sony Lifestyle by suckmysav
Date:	Sat, 18 Dec 2004 13:45:03 +1100

Mark Addinall wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Everyone has a point Obli-Do.

Consider three tennis balls, in a line. How may have points? Not one has a
point. So, everyone does not have a point. That will be $5, please.

> Given a crumpet MUST have holes, otherwise, a crumpet be it not,
> rather soggy bread, AND
> the number of the holes must be more than one, for a crumpet with but
> one hole, is a
> bland doughnut, ergo, the lower bound for n, n = 2. The upper bound
> for n is somewhat
> more problamatic, the diameter of the said holes, given n = 2 needs
> to be less than one half
> the diameter of the crumpet, lest the crumpet do some spooky quantum
> thingammy,
> and we want none of that at the breakfast table my lad. SO let the
> diameter of the crumpet
> be D, then, the diameter of the holes can be assumed to be < 1/2 . D.
> What constitutes a hole?
> The measure of space between the atoms of a crumpet is easily enough
> calculated (in
> an emperical, rather than a quantum model) but does this space
> constitute a whole hole?
>
> This question deserved some research, and in usual manner, I
> approached the definition with
> some gusto for research, and,
>
> "So last night, I went to this supermarket that I don't normally go
> to get my weekly grub.
> I always have crumpets on my list, I love a good crumpet in the
> morning with my coffee and/or fruit juice.
> It's just something that I do.
> Anyway. I thought that a crumpet was a crumpet was a crumpet. My god,
> how wrong I was. I picked up this 'Quality Bakers'
> packet from the bakery department, not thinking that it would be any
> different than the ones I normally have.
> 5 minutes ago I'm sitting here bored out of my skull and decide it
> must be time for a snack. Crack out the toaster, grab
> the butter from the fridge (good crumpets must be buttered no more
> than 10 seconds after popping from the toaster),
> and open this packet of crumpets I've got.
> These things are flat, a bright white colour, and they've got like
> 4-5 holes in the top each only.
>
> WHAT. THE. FUCK.
>
> What the hell good is a crumpet with such a pathetic amount of holes!?
> They sure as hell ain't fluffy, they're like this doughy consistancy,
> and when you toast the buggers they don't
> get all crisp even after 2 goes through the toaster on full blast!
>
> Moral of the story - 'Quality Bakers' Crumpets = shit, 'Golden'
> Crumpets = Oh my fucking god my taste buds are having an orgasm.
> I am one pissed off goddamn motherfucker.
> This is how Osama Bin-Laden got started you know. The twin towers
> would still be there if they didnt fuck around with the mans
> crumpets."
>
> It would seem that five holes is not regarded well. This lifts our
> number of holes from a lower bound of n=2
> to the lower bound of acceptability of "crumpetness, to n > 5.
>
> Upon further investigation:
>
> "Crumpets are British griddle cakes. The batter is poured in metal
> rings, and when the cakes have set, the rings
> are removed so that the crumpets can be turned over. Crumpets have
> large holes"
>
> Ah HA! Crumpets have LARGE holes! Now we are getting somewhere. How
> large?
>
> They need to be large enough to SEE, or feel with a digit I suppose
> (for the visually impaired),
> that leads us into cognesis, which Tom is the spurt, myself a mere
> beginner. Can we agree that
> LARGE (Vis. large enough to define as a "hole" as one one hundreth of
> the total crumpet surface
> area on one plane (top - front)?
>
> This seems to define our iterative bounderies, whereas, the hole
> number n (sic), must be larger than
> 5 to satisfy the "It isn't a crumpet" criteria and less than, or
> equal to 100, where at such a point
> the "holes" cease to exist as "meaningful "holes.
>
> Now with some confidence we may delve into the little used library of
> "algorithms" and suggest:
> using the Newton-Raphson Iteration. To find a root f(x) = 0 given one
> initial approximation
> p_0 and using the iteration
>
> Let k = dx(lower bound,...,upper bound)
>
> f(p_(k-1))
> p_k = p_(k-1) - ----------- for k = 6, 7, ... 100
> f'(p_(k-1))
>
>
> seems to round at 42.0006591
>
> suggesting, that a crumpet, that meets all criteria of "crumpetness",
> has approx.
> 42 servicable "holes".
>
> It should be noted that this is theory and a Markove/Monte Carlo
> predictive run would be
> usefull after emperic statistical sampling.
>
> I hope that helped.

It may be that quite a lot depends on your definition of "crumpet". Try the
two- legged variety, for example.

> Mark (true-blue) Addinall
>
> addendum: Never, ever, ever, ever, sell an accounting system to a
> commercial crumpet
> maker. Nice folk they are, but consider the time they do the
> bookeeping, and when they
> require software support.

If you say so.

From:	Mark Addinall
Subject:	Re: Repost from elsewhere: Sony Lifestyle by suckmysav
Date:	Mon, 20 Dec 2004 01:47:03 GMT

"Galimatias" wrote in message
news:ycvy0nhi6lpvqvf.181220041345@127.0.0.1...
> Mark Addinall wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Everyone has a point Obli-Do.
>
> Consider three tennis balls, in a line. How may have points? Not one has
> a
> point. So, everyone does not have a point. That will be $5, please.

If it's anywhere near the surface of the Earth (I can only assume you
are posting from my planet) the three will form a non-eucludian
triangle, however small the tahn(). $10 please.

>
>> Given a crumpet MUST have holes, otherwise, a crumpet be it not,
>> rather soggy bread, AND
>> the number of the holes must be more than one, for a crumpet with but
>> one hole, is a
>> bland doughnut, ergo, the lower bound for n, n = 2. The upper bound
>> for n is somewhat
>> more problamatic, the diameter of the said holes, given n = 2 needs
>> to be less than one half
>> the diameter of the crumpet, lest the crumpet do some spooky quantum
>> thingammy,
>> and we want none of that at the breakfast table my lad. SO let the
>> diameter of the crumpet
>> be D, then, the diameter of the holes can be assumed to be < 1/2 . D.
>> What constitutes a hole?
>> The measure of space between the atoms of a crumpet is easily enough
>> calculated (in
>> an emperical, rather than a quantum model) but does this space
>> constitute a whole hole?
>>
>> This question deserved some research, and in usual manner, I
>> approached the definition with
>> some gusto for research, and,
>>
>> "So last night, I went to this supermarket that I don't normally go
>> to get my weekly grub.
>> I always have crumpets on my list, I love a good crumpet in the
>> morning with my coffee and/or fruit juice.
>> It's just something that I do.
>> Anyway. I thought that a crumpet was a crumpet was a crumpet. My god,
>> how wrong I was. I picked up this 'Quality Bakers'
>> packet from the bakery department, not thinking that it would be any
>> different than the ones I normally have.
>> 5 minutes ago I'm sitting here bored out of my skull and decide it
>> must be time for a snack. Crack out the toaster, grab
>> the butter from the fridge (good crumpets must be buttered no more
>> than 10 seconds after popping from the toaster),
>> and open this packet of crumpets I've got.
>> These things are flat, a bright white colour, and they've got like
>> 4-5 holes in the top each only.
>>
>> WHAT. THE. FUCK.
>>
>> What the hell good is a crumpet with such a pathetic amount of holes!?
>> They sure as hell ain't fluffy, they're like this doughy consistancy,
>> and when you toast the buggers they don't
>> get all crisp even after 2 goes through the toaster on full blast!
>>
>> Moral of the story - 'Quality Bakers' Crumpets = shit, 'Golden'
>> Crumpets = Oh my fucking god my taste buds are having an orgasm.
>> I am one pissed off goddamn motherfucker.
>> This is how Osama Bin-Laden got started you know. The twin towers
>> would still be there if they didnt fuck around with the mans
>> crumpets."
>>
>> It would seem that five holes is not regarded well. This lifts our
>> number of holes from a lower bound of n=2
>> to the lower bound of acceptability of "crumpetness, to n > 5.
>>
>> Upon further investigation:
>>
>> "Crumpets are British griddle cakes. The batter is poured in metal
>> rings, and when the cakes have set, the rings
>> are removed so that the crumpets can be turned over. Crumpets have
>> large holes"
>>
>> Ah HA! Crumpets have LARGE holes! Now we are getting somewhere. How
>> large?
>>
>> They need to be large enough to SEE, or feel with a digit I suppose
>> (for the visually impaired),
>> that leads us into cognesis, which Tom is the spurt, myself a mere
>> beginner. Can we agree that
>> LARGE (Vis. large enough to define as a "hole" as one one hundreth of
>> the total crumpet surface
>> area on one plane (top - front)?
>>
>> This seems to define our iterative bounderies, whereas, the hole
>> number n (sic), must be larger than
>> 5 to satisfy the "It isn't a crumpet" criteria and less than, or
>> equal to 100, where at such a point
>> the "holes" cease to exist as "meaningful "holes.
>>
>> Now with some confidence we may delve into the little used library of
>> "algorithms" and suggest:
>> using the Newton-Raphson Iteration. To find a root f(x) = 0 given one
>> initial approximation
>> p_0 and using the iteration
>>
>> Let k = dx(lower bound,...,upper bound)
>>
>> f(p_(k-1))
>> p_k = p_(k-1) - ----------- for k = 6, 7, ... 100
>> f'(p_(k-1))
>>
>>
>> seems to round at 42.0006591
>>
>> suggesting, that a crumpet, that meets all criteria of "crumpetness",
>> has approx.
>> 42 servicable "holes".
>>
>> It should be noted that this is theory and a Markove/Monte Carlo
>> predictive run would be
>> usefull after emperic statistical sampling.
>>
>> I hope that helped.
>
> It may be that quite a lot depends on your definition of "crumpet". Try
> the
> two- legged variety, for example.

That's true, holes one, two, three or five seem to be acceptebubblle.
Adding extra holes is not.

>
>> Mark (true-blue) Addinall
>>
>> addendum: Never, ever, ever, ever, sell an accounting system to a
>> commercial crumpet
>> maker. Nice folk they are, but consider the time they do the
>> bookeeping, and when they
>> require software support.
>
> If you say so.

I do. Is there any reason you like tagging 100 empty lines onto your posts?

Mark (true-blue) Addinall.

From:	Galimatias
Subject:	Re: Repost from elsewhere: Sony Lifestyle by suckmysav
Date:	Mon, 20 Dec 2004 13:57:25 +1100

Mark Addinall wrote:
> "Galimatias" wrote in message
> news:ycvy0nhi6lpvqvf.181220041345@127.0.0.1...
>> Mark Addinall wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Everyone has a point Obli-Do.
>>
>> Consider three tennis balls, in a line. How may have points? Not
>> one has a
>> point. So, everyone does not have a point. That will be $5, please.
>
> If it's anywhere near the surface of the Earth (I can only assume you
> are posting from my planet) ...

No assumptions, please. Similarly, that it's not near the surface of the
Earth.

> the three will form a non-eucludian
> triangle, however small the tahn(). $10 please.

Now, remove one. Double or nothing.

> Is there any reason you like tagging 100 empty lines onto your
> posts?

Yes.

From:	Mark Addinall
Subject:	Re: Repost from elsewhere: Sony Lifestyle by suckmysav
Date:	Mon, 20 Dec 2004 03:11:07 GMT

"Galimatias" wrote in message
news:xnfulb6te2xsc5e.201220041357@127.0.0.1...
> Mark Addinall wrote:
>> "Galimatias" wrote in message
>> news:ycvy0nhi6lpvqvf.181220041345@127.0.0.1...
>>> Mark Addinall wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Everyone has a point Obli-Do.
>>>
>>> Consider three tennis balls, in a line. How may have points? Not
>>> one has a
>>> point. So, everyone does not have a point. That will be $5, please.
>>
>> If it's anywhere near the surface of the Earth (I can only assume you
>> are posting from my planet) ...
>
> No assumptions, please.

Fine. Which planet are you posting from. IPv6 in action.

> Similarly, that it's not near the surface of the
> Earth.
>
>> the three will form a non-eucludian
>> triangle, however small the tahn(). $10 please.
>
> Now, remove one. Double or nothing.

The inside of the two remaining balls will form an equilateral triangle in
space given a perfect curvature. Non Eucludian if not (which is more
likely),
thus given six definitive points. Easily calculated with tan() and tahn().

$120 please.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Curvature.html

>
>
>
>> Is there any reason you like tagging 100 empty lines onto your
>> posts?
>
> Yes.

Fine. It's your dollar.

Mark (true-blue) Addinall.

>
>
>
>
>

From:	Galimatias
Subject:	Re: Repost from elsewhere: Sony Lifestyle by suckmysav
Date:	Mon, 20 Dec 2004 15:44:46 +1100

Mark Addinall wrote:
> "Galimatias" wrote in message
> news:xnfulb6te2xsc5e.201220041357@127.0.0.1...
>> Mark Addinall wrote:
>>> "Galimatias" wrote in message
>>> news:ycvy0nhi6lpvqvf.181220041345@127.0.0.1...
>>>> Mark Addinall wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Everyone has a point Obli-Do.
>>>>
>>>> Consider three tennis balls, in a line. How may have points? Not
>>>> one has a
>>>> point. So, everyone does not have a point. That will be $5,
>>>> please.
>>>
>>> If it's anywhere near the surface of the Earth (I can only assume
>>> you are posting from my planet) ...
>>
>> No assumptions, please.
>
> Fine. Which planet are you posting from. IPv6 in action.

I'm sure you know the drill. I could yell you, but someone would have to
kill you. Deal?
>
>> Similarly, that it's not near the surface of the
>> Earth.
>>
>>> the three will form a non-eucludian
>>> triangle, however small the tahn(). $10 please.
>>
>> Now, remove one. Double or nothing.
>
> The inside of the two remaining balls will form an equilateral
> triangle in space given a perfect curvature. Non Eucludian if not
> (which is more likely),
> thus given six definitive points. Easily calculated with tan() and
> tahn().
>
> $120 please.
>
> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Curvature.html

I'm afraid you have got it wrong, yet again. I accept blank cheques.

>>
>>
>>> Is there any reason you like tagging 100 empty lines onto your
>>> posts?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> Fine. It's your dollar.

Not if I can help it.

From:	Mark Addinall
Subject:	Re: Repost from elsewhere: Sony Lifestyle by suckmysav
Date:	Mon, 20 Dec 2004 05:29:16 GMT

"Galimatias" wrote in message
news:85b1uqzb56uhnna.201220041544@127.0.0.1...
> Mark Addinall wrote:
>> "Galimatias" wrote in message
>> news:xnfulb6te2xsc5e.201220041357@127.0.0.1...
>>> Mark Addinall wrote:
>>>> "Galimatias" wrote in message
>>>> news:ycvy0nhi6lpvqvf.181220041345@127.0.0.1...
>>>>> Mark Addinall wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Everyone has a point Obli-Do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Consider three tennis balls, in a line. How may have points? Not
>>>>> one has a
>>>>> point. So, everyone does not have a point. That will be $5,
>>>>> please.
>>>>
>>>> If it's anywhere near the surface of the Earth (I can only assume
>>>> you are posting from my planet) ...
>>>
>>> No assumptions, please.
>>
>> Fine. Which planet are you posting from. IPv6 in action.
>
> I'm sure you know the drill. I could yell you, but someone would have to
> kill you. Deal?
>>
>>> Similarly, that it's not near the surface of the
>>> Earth.
>>>
>>>> the three will form a non-eucludian
>>>> triangle, however small the tahn(). $10 please.
>>>
>>> Now, remove one. Double or nothing.
>>
>> The inside of the two remaining balls will form an equilateral
>> triangle in space given a perfect curvature. Non Eucludian if not
>> (which is more likely),
>> thus given six definitive points. Easily calculated with tan() and
>> tahn().
>>
>> $120 please.
>>
>> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Curvature.html
>
> I'm afraid you have got it wrong, yet again. I accept blank cheques.

How so?

I'll accept $240.

>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Is there any reason you like tagging 100 empty lines onto your
>>>> posts?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>
>> Fine. It's your dollar.
>
> Not if I can help it.

Don't bet on math. It's not your strong point.

Mark Addinall.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From:	Galimatias
Subject:	Re: Repost from elsewhere: Sony Lifestyle by suckmysav
Date:	Mon, 20 Dec 2004 17:34:31 +1100

Mark Addinall wrote:
> "Galimatias" wrote in message
> news:85b1uqzb56uhnna.201220041544@127.0.0.1...
>> Mark Addinall wrote:
>>> "Galimatias" wrote in message
>>> news:xnfulb6te2xsc5e.201220041357@127.0.0.1...
>>>> Mark Addinall wrote:
>>>>> "Galimatias" wrote in message
>>>>> news:ycvy0nhi6lpvqvf.181220041345@127.0.0.1...
>>>>>> Mark Addinall wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Everyone has a point Obli-Do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Consider three tennis balls, in a line. How may have points?
>>>>>> Not one has a
>>>>>> point. So, everyone does not have a point. That will be $5,
>>>>>> please.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it's anywhere near the surface of the Earth (I can only assume
>>>>> you are posting from my planet) ...
>>>>
>>>> No assumptions, please.
>>>
>>> Fine. Which planet are you posting from. IPv6 in action.
>>
>> I'm sure you know the drill. I could yell you, but someone would
>> have to kill you. Deal?
>>>
>>>> Similarly, that it's not near the surface of the
>>>> Earth.
>>>>
>>>>> the three will form a non-eucludian
>>>>> triangle, however small the tahn(). $10 please.
>>>>
>>>> Now, remove one. Double or nothing.
>>>
>>> The inside of the two remaining balls will form an equilateral
>>> triangle in space given a perfect curvature. Non Eucludian if not
>>> (which is more likely),
>>> thus given six definitive points. Easily calculated with tan() and
>>> tahn().
>>>
>>> $120 please.
>>>
>>> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Curvature.html
>>
>> I'm afraid you have got it wrong, yet again. I accept blank cheques.
>
> How so?

See below.
>
> I'll accept $240.

Or a used tram ticket.

>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Is there any reason you like tagging 100 empty lines onto your
>>>>> posts?
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> Fine. It's your dollar.
>>
>> Not if I can help it.
>
> Don't bet on math. It's not your strong point.

Who is using math? This is a zero-sum game for cheats ie its statistics.

From:	Mark Addinall
Subject:	Re: Repost from elsewhere: Sony Lifestyle by suckmysav
Date:	Mon, 20 Dec 2004 06:43:10 GMT

"Galimatias" wrote in message
news:0vwk31vxkx60xzh.201220041734@127.0.0.1...
> Mark Addinall wrote:
>> "Galimatias" wrote in message
>> news:85b1uqzb56uhnna.201220041544@127.0.0.1...
>>> Mark Addinall wrote:
>>>> "Galimatias" wrote in message
>>>> news:xnfulb6te2xsc5e.201220041357@127.0.0.1...
>>>>> Mark Addinall wrote:
>>>>>> "Galimatias" wrote in message
>>>>>> news:ycvy0nhi6lpvqvf.181220041345@127.0.0.1...
>>>>>>> Mark Addinall wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Everyone has a point Obli-Do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Consider three tennis balls, in a line. How may have points?
>>>>>>> Not one has a
>>>>>>> point. So, everyone does not have a point. That will be $5,
>>>>>>> please.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it's anywhere near the surface of the Earth (I can only assume
>>>>>> you are posting from my planet) ...
>>>>>
>>>>> No assumptions, please.
>>>>
>>>> Fine. Which planet are you posting from. IPv6 in action.
>>>
>>> I'm sure you know the drill. I could yell you, but someone would
>>> have to kill you. Deal?
>>>>
>>>>> Similarly, that it's not near the surface of the
>>>>> Earth.
>>>>>
>>>>>> the three will form a non-eucludian
>>>>>> triangle, however small the tahn(). $10 please.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, remove one. Double or nothing.
>>>>
>>>> The inside of the two remaining balls will form an equilateral
>>>> triangle in space given a perfect curvature. Non Eucludian if not
>>>> (which is more likely),
>>>> thus given six definitive points. Easily calculated with tan() and
>>>> tahn().
>>>>
>>>> $120 please.
>>>>
>>>> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Curvature.html
>>>
>>> I'm afraid you have got it wrong, yet again. I accept blank cheques.
>>
>> How so?
>
> See below.
>>
>> I'll accept $240.
>
> Or a used tram ticket.

Fine. Give me one date stamped 1878.
Otherwise I'll have my $240 thanks.

>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there any reason you like tagging 100 empty lines onto your
>>>>>> posts?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>> Fine. It's your dollar.
>>>
>>> Not if I can help it.
>>
>> Don't bet on math. It's not your strong point.
>
> Who is using math?

Not you.

Mark (true-blue) Addinall.

> This is a zero-sum game for cheats ie its statistics.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From:	Harry Snape
Subject:	Re: Repost from elsewhere: Sony Lifestyle by suckmysav
Date:	Sat, 18 Dec 2004 14:16:37 +1100

Mark Addinall wrote:
> "Galimatias" wrote in message
> news:334zkf7jheofd2n.181220041027@127.0.0.1...
>
>>Mark Addinall wrote:
>>
>>>"Galimatias" wrote in message
>>>news:7huv1wqowvy15c1.171220042233@127.0.0.1...
>>>
>>>>Mark Addinall wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Galimatias" wrote in message
>>>>>news:j1hr6rb6tm4c15g.171220042123@127.0.0.1...
>>>>>
>>>>>>Proteus wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ask
>>>>>>
>>>>>>OK. How may holes in a crumpet?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>42.
>>>>>
>>>>>Mark (true-blue) Addinall
>>>>>
>>>>>Now I wait for noddy to buy a pack of crumpets and try to count
>>>>>the holes. Triumphantly declaring WRONG! Therebye proving he
>>>>>is a member of the MISTER RICE and dose damn bleks should be
>>>>>gratefull for the crumpets!
>>>>
>>>>He who asserts must prove. Please post proof of your claim that a
>>>>crumpet has 42 holes. BTW, deep and meaningful philosophical
>>>>references cut no ice.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> 1.. Proof by Obviousness: "The proof is so clear that it need not be
>>>mentioned."
>>> 2.. Proof by General Agreement: "All in Favor?..."
>>>
>>> 3.. Proof by Imagination: "Well, We'll pretend its true."
>>> 4.. Proof by Convenience: "It would be very nice if it were true,
>>>so ..."
>>>
>>> 5.. Proof by Necessity: "It had better be true or the whole
>>>structure of mathematics would crumble to the ground."
>>> 6.. Proof by Plausibility: "It sounds good so it must be true."
>>>
>>> 7.. Proof by Intimidation: "Don't be stupid, of course it's true."
>>> 8.. Proof by Lack of Sufficient Time: "Because of the time
>>>constraint, I'll leave the proof to you."
>>>
>>> 9.. Proof by Postponement: "The proof for this is so long and
>>>arduous, so it is given in the appendix."
>>> 10.. Proof by Accident: "Hey, what have we here?"
>>>
>>> 11.. Proof by Insignificance: "Who really cares anyway?"
>>> 12.. Proof by Mumbo-Jumbo: " For any epsilon> 0 there exists a
>>>corresponding delta > 0 s.t. f(x)-L < epsilon whenever x-a < delta"
>>>
>>> 13.. Proof by Profanity: (example omitted)
>>> 14.. Proof by Definition: "We'll define it to be true."
>>>
>>> 15.. Proof by Tautology: "It's true because it's true."
>>> 16.. Proof by Plagiarism: "As we see on page 238 ..."
>>>
>>> 17.. Proof by Lost Reference: "I know I saw this somewhere ..."
>>> 18.. Proof by Calculus: "This proof requires calculus, so we'll
>>>skip it."
>>>
>>> 19.. Proof by Terror: When intimidation fails ...
>>> 20.. Proof by Lack of Interest: "Does anyone really want to see
>>>this?"
>>>
>>> 21.. Proof by Illegibility: " ¥ ª Ð Þ þæ"
>>> 22.. Proof by Logic: "If it is on the problem sheet, then it must be
>>>true."
>>>
>>> 23.. Proof by Majority Rule: Only to be used if General Agreement is
>>>impossible.
>>> 24.. Proof by Clever Variable Choice: "Let A be the number such
>>>that this proof works."
>>>
>>> 25.. Proof by Tessellation: "This proof is just the same as the
>>>last."
>>> 26.. Proof by Divine Word: "And the Lord said, 'Let it be true,'
>>>and it came to pass."
>>>
>>> 27.. Proof by Stubbornness: "I don't care what you say! It is true!"
>>> 28.. Proof by Simplification: "This proof reduces to the statement,
>>>1 + 1 = 2."
>>>
>>> 29.. Proof by Hasty Generalization: "Well, it works for 17, so it
>>>works for all reals."
>>> 30.. Proof by Deception: "Now everyone turn their backs ..."
>>>
>>> 31.. Proof by Supplication: "Oh please, let it be true."
>>> 32.. Proof by Poor Analogy: "Well, it's just like ..."
>>>
>>> 33.. Proof by Avoidance: Limit of Proof by Postponement as t
>>>approaches infinity.
>>> 34.. Proof by Design: "If it's not true in today's math, invent a
>>>new system in which it is."
>>>
>>> 35.. Proof by Intuition: "I just have this gut feeling ..."
>>> 36.. Proof by Authority: "Well, Bill Gates says it's true, so it
>>>must be."
>>>
>>> 37.. Proof by Vigorous Assertion: "And I REALLY MEAN THAT!"
>>> 38.. Proof by A.F.K.T. Theorem: "Any Fool Knows That!"
>>>
>>> 39.. Proof by vigorous handwaving: Works well in a classroom.
>>> 40.. Proof by seduction: "Convince yourself that this is true!"
>>>
>>> 41.. Proof by accumulated evidence: "Long and diligent search has
>>>not revealed a counterexample."
>>> 42.. Proof by Divine Intervention: "Then a miracle occurs ..."
>>>
>>>Which would you like?
>>
>>I have a choice? Ok. Wrong, by incorrect attribution.
>>
>>
>
>
> Everyone has a point Obli-Do.
>
> Given a crumpet MUST have holes, otherwise, a crumpet be it not, rather
> soggy bread, AND
> the number of the holes must be more than one, for a crumpet with but one
> hole, is a
> bland doughnut, ergo, the lower bound for n, n = 2. The upper bound for n
> is somewhat
> more problamatic, the diameter of the said holes, given n = 2 needs to be
> less than one half
> the diameter of the crumpet, lest the crumpet do some spooky quantum
> thingammy,
> and we want none of that at the breakfast table my lad. SO let the diameter
> of the crumpet
> be D, then, the diameter of the holes can be assumed to be < 1/2 . D. What
> constitutes a hole?
> The measure of space between the atoms of a crumpet is easily enough
> calculated (in
> an emperical, rather than a quantum model) but does this space constitute a
> whole hole?
>
> This question deserved some research, and in usual manner, I approached the
> definition with
> some gusto for research, and,
>
> "So last night, I went to this supermarket that I don't normally go to get
> my weekly grub.
> I always have crumpets on my list, I love a good crumpet in the morning with
> my coffee and/or fruit juice.
> It's just something that I do.
> Anyway. I thought that a crumpet was a crumpet was a crumpet. My god, how
> wrong I was. I picked up this 'Quality Bakers'
> packet from the bakery department, not thinking that it would be any
> different than the ones I normally have.
> 5 minutes ago I'm sitting here bored out of my skull and decide it must be
> time for a snack. Crack out the toaster, grab
> the butter from the fridge (good crumpets must be buttered no more than 10
> seconds after popping from the toaster),
> and open this packet of crumpets I've got.
> These things are flat, a bright white colour, and they've got like 4-5 holes
> in the top each only.
>
> WHAT. THE. FUCK.
>
> What the hell good is a crumpet with such a pathetic amount of holes!?
> They sure as hell ain't fluffy, they're like this doughy consistancy, and
> when you toast the buggers they don't
> get all crisp even after 2 goes through the toaster on full blast!
>
> Moral of the story - 'Quality Bakers' Crumpets = shit, 'Golden' Crumpets =
> Oh my fucking god my taste buds are having an orgasm.
> I am one pissed off goddamn motherfucker.
> This is how Osama Bin-Laden got started you know. The twin towers would
> still be there if they didnt fuck around with the mans crumpets."
>
> It would seem that five holes is not regarded well. This lifts our number
> of holes from a lower bound of n=2
> to the lower bound of acceptability of "crumpetness, to n > 5.
>
> Upon further investigation:
>
> "Crumpets are British griddle cakes. The batter is poured in metal rings,
> and when the cakes have set, the rings
> are removed so that the crumpets can be turned over. Crumpets have large
> holes"
>
> Ah HA! Crumpets have LARGE holes! Now we are getting somewhere. How
> large?
>
> They need to be large enough to SEE, or feel with a digit I suppose (for the
> visually impaired),
> that leads us into cognesis, which Tom is the spurt, myself a mere beginner.
> Can we agree that
> LARGE (Vis. large enough to define as a "hole" as one one hundreth of the
> total crumpet surface
> area on one plane (top - front)?
>
> This seems to define our iterative bounderies, whereas, the hole number n
> (sic), must be larger than
> 5 to satisfy the "It isn't a crumpet" criteria and less than, or equal to
> 100, where at such a point
> the "holes" cease to exist as "meaningful "holes.
>
> Now with some confidence we may delve into the little used library of
> "algorithms" and suggest:
> using the Newton-Raphson Iteration. To find a root f(x) = 0 given one
> initial approximation
> p_0 and using the iteration
>
> Let k = dx(lower bound,...,upper bound)
>
> f(p_(k-1))
> p_k = p_(k-1) - ----------- for k = 6, 7, ... 100
> f'(p_(k-1))
>
>
> seems to round at 42.0006591
>
> suggesting, that a crumpet, that meets all criteria of "crumpetness", has
> approx.
> 42 servicable "holes".

Didn't this all start with you making fun of Ned and saying that he
would do exactly what you have now done?

> It should be noted that this is theory and a Markove/Monte Carlo predictive
> run would be
> usefull after emperic statistical sampling.

Markove?
Emperic?
Usefull?

I think you have finally found the right level of intellectual discourse
for yourself.

> I hope that helped.
>
> Mark (true-blue) Addinall
>
> addendum: Never, ever, ever, ever, sell an accounting system to a
> commercial crumpet
> maker. Nice folk they are, but consider the time they do the bookeeping,
> and when they
> require software support.
>

From:	Mark Addinall
Subject:	Re: Repost from elsewhere: Sony Lifestyle by suckmysav
Date:	Sat, 18 Dec 2004 03:21:30 GMT

"Harry Snape" wrote in message
news:41c3a118$0$5287$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Mark Addinall wrote:
>> "Galimatias" wrote in message
>> news:334zkf7jheofd2n.181220041027@127.0.0.1...
>>
>>>Mark Addinall wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Galimatias" wrote in message
>>>>news:7huv1wqowvy15c1.171220042233@127.0.0.1...
>>>>
>>>>>Mark Addinall wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Galimatias" wrote in message
>>>>>>news:j1hr6rb6tm4c15g.171220042123@127.0.0.1...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Proteus wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Ask
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>OK. How may holes in a crumpet?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>42.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Mark (true-blue) Addinall
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Now I wait for noddy to buy a pack of crumpets and try to count
>>>>>>the holes. Triumphantly declaring WRONG! Therebye proving he
>>>>>>is a member of the MISTER RICE and dose damn bleks should be
>>>>>>gratefull for the crumpets!
>>>>>
>>>>>He who asserts must prove. Please post proof of your claim that a
>>>>>crumpet has 42 holes. BTW, deep and meaningful philosophical
>>>>>references cut no ice.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1.. Proof by Obviousness: "The proof is so clear that it need not be
>>>>mentioned."
>>>> 2.. Proof by General Agreement: "All in Favor?..."
>>>>
>>>> 3.. Proof by Imagination: "Well, We'll pretend its true."
>>>> 4.. Proof by Convenience: "It would be very nice if it were true,
>>>>so ..."
>>>>
>>>> 5.. Proof by Necessity: "It had better be true or the whole
>>>>structure of mathematics would crumble to the ground."
>>>> 6.. Proof by Plausibility: "It sounds good so it must be true."
>>>>
>>>> 7.. Proof by Intimidation: "Don't be stupid, of course it's true."
>>>> 8.. Proof by Lack of Sufficient Time: "Because of the time
>>>>constraint, I'll leave the proof to you."
>>>>
>>>> 9.. Proof by Postponement: "The proof for this is so long and
>>>>arduous, so it is given in the appendix."
>>>> 10.. Proof by Accident: "Hey, what have we here?"
>>>>
>>>> 11.. Proof by Insignificance: "Who really cares anyway?"
>>>> 12.. Proof by Mumbo-Jumbo: " For any epsilon> 0 there exists a
>>>>corresponding delta > 0 s.t. f(x)-L < epsilon whenever x-a < delta"
>>>>
>>>> 13.. Proof by Profanity: (example omitted)
>>>> 14.. Proof by Definition: "We'll define it to be true."
>>>>
>>>> 15.. Proof by Tautology: "It's true because it's true."
>>>> 16.. Proof by Plagiarism: "As we see on page 238 ..."
>>>>
>>>> 17.. Proof by Lost Reference: "I know I saw this somewhere ..."
>>>> 18.. Proof by Calculus: "This proof requires calculus, so we'll
>>>>skip it."
>>>>
>>>> 19.. Proof by Terror: When intimidation fails ...
>>>> 20.. Proof by Lack of Interest: "Does anyone really want to see
>>>>this?"
>>>>
>>>> 21.. Proof by Illegibility: " ¥ ª Ð Þ þæ"
>>>> 22.. Proof by Logic: "If it is on the problem sheet, then it must be
>>>>true."
>>>>
>>>> 23.. Proof by Majority Rule: Only to be used if General Agreement is
>>>>impossible.
>>>> 24.. Proof by Clever Variable Choice: "Let A be the number such
>>>>that this proof works."
>>>>
>>>> 25.. Proof by Tessellation: "This proof is just the same as the
>>>>last."
>>>> 26.. Proof by Divine Word: "And the Lord said, 'Let it be true,'
>>>>and it came to pass."
>>>>
>>>> 27.. Proof by Stubbornness: "I don't care what you say! It is true!"
>>>> 28.. Proof by Simplification: "This proof reduces to the statement,
>>>>1 + 1 = 2."
>>>>
>>>> 29.. Proof by Hasty Generalization: "Well, it works for 17, so it
>>>>works for all reals."
>>>> 30.. Proof by Deception: "Now everyone turn their backs ..."
>>>>
>>>> 31.. Proof by Supplication: "Oh please, let it be true."
>>>> 32.. Proof by Poor Analogy: "Well, it's just like ..."
>>>>
>>>> 33.. Proof by Avoidance: Limit of Proof by Postponement as t
>>>>approaches infinity.
>>>> 34.. Proof by Design: "If it's not true in today's math, invent a
>>>>new system in which it is."
>>>>
>>>> 35.. Proof by Intuition: "I just have this gut feeling ..."
>>>> 36.. Proof by Authority: "Well, Bill Gates says it's true, so it
>>>>must be."
>>>>
>>>> 37.. Proof by Vigorous Assertion: "And I REALLY MEAN THAT!"
>>>> 38.. Proof by A.F.K.T. Theorem: "Any Fool Knows That!"
>>>>
>>>> 39.. Proof by vigorous handwaving: Works well in a classroom.
>>>> 40.. Proof by seduction: "Convince yourself that this is true!"
>>>>
>>>> 41.. Proof by accumulated evidence: "Long and diligent search has
>>>>not revealed a counterexample."
>>>> 42.. Proof by Divine Intervention: "Then a miracle occurs ..."
>>>>
>>>>Which would you like?
>>>
>>>I have a choice? Ok. Wrong, by incorrect attribution.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Everyone has a point Obli-Do.
>>
>> Given a crumpet MUST have holes, otherwise, a crumpet be it not, rather
>> soggy bread, AND
>> the number of the holes must be more than one, for a crumpet with but one
>> hole, is a
>> bland doughnut, ergo, the lower bound for n, n = 2. The upper bound for
>> n is somewhat
>> more problamatic, the diameter of the said holes, given n = 2 needs to be
>> less than one half
>> the diameter of the crumpet, lest the crumpet do some spooky quantum
>> thingammy,
>> and we want none of that at the breakfast table my lad. SO let the
>> diameter of the crumpet
>> be D, then, the diameter of the holes can be assumed to be < 1/2 . D.
>> What constitutes a hole?
>> The measure of space between the atoms of a crumpet is easily enough
>> calculated (in
>> an emperical, rather than a quantum model) but does this space constitute
>> a whole hole?
>>
>> This question deserved some research, and in usual manner, I approached
>> the definition with
>> some gusto for research, and,
>>
>> "So last night, I went to this supermarket that I don't normally go to
>> get my weekly grub.
>> I always have crumpets on my list, I love a good crumpet in the morning
>> with my coffee and/or fruit juice.
>> It's just something that I do.
>> Anyway. I thought that a crumpet was a crumpet was a crumpet. My god, how
>> wrong I was. I picked up this 'Quality Bakers'
>> packet from the bakery department, not thinking that it would be any
>> different than the ones I normally have.
>> 5 minutes ago I'm sitting here bored out of my skull and decide it must
>> be time for a snack. Crack out the toaster, grab
>> the butter from the fridge (good crumpets must be buttered no more than
>> 10 seconds after popping from the toaster),
>> and open this packet of crumpets I've got.
>> These things are flat, a bright white colour, and they've got like 4-5
>> holes in the top each only.
>>
>> WHAT. THE. FUCK.
>>
>> What the hell good is a crumpet with such a pathetic amount of holes!?
>> They sure as hell ain't fluffy, they're like this doughy consistancy, and
>> when you toast the buggers they don't
>> get all crisp even after 2 goes through the toaster on full blast!
>>
>> Moral of the story - 'Quality Bakers' Crumpets = shit, 'Golden' Crumpets
>> = Oh my fucking god my taste buds are having an orgasm.
>> I am one pissed off goddamn motherfucker.
>> This is how Osama Bin-Laden got started you know. The twin towers would
>> still be there if they didnt fuck around with the mans crumpets."
>>
>> It would seem that five holes is not regarded well. This lifts our
>> number of holes from a lower bound of n=2
>> to the lower bound of acceptability of "crumpetness, to n > 5.
>>
>> Upon further investigation:
>>
>> "Crumpets are British griddle cakes. The batter is poured in metal
>> rings, and when the cakes have set, the rings
>> are removed so that the crumpets can be turned over. Crumpets have large
>> holes"
>>
>> Ah HA! Crumpets have LARGE holes! Now we are getting somewhere. How
>> large?
>>
>> They need to be large enough to SEE, or feel with a digit I suppose (for
>> the visually impaired),
>> that leads us into cognesis, which Tom is the spurt, myself a mere
>> beginner. Can we agree that
>> LARGE (Vis. large enough to define as a "hole" as one one hundreth of the
>> total crumpet surface
>> area on one plane (top - front)?
>>
>> This seems to define our iterative bounderies, whereas, the hole number n
>> (sic), must be larger than
>> 5 to satisfy the "It isn't a crumpet" criteria and less than, or equal to
>> 100, where at such a point
>> the "holes" cease to exist as "meaningful "holes.
>>
>> Now with some confidence we may delve into the little used library of
>> "algorithms" and suggest:
>> using the Newton-Raphson Iteration. To find a root f(x) = 0 given one
>> initial approximation
>> p_0 and using the iteration
>>
>> Let k = dx(lower bound,...,upper bound)
>>
>> f(p_(k-1))
>> p_k = p_(k-1) - ----------- for k = 6, 7, ... 100
>> f'(p_(k-1))
>>
>>
>> seems to round at 42.0006591
>>
>> suggesting, that a crumpet, that meets all criteria of "crumpetness", has
>> approx.
>> 42 servicable "holes".
>
> Didn't this all start with you making fun of Ned and saying that he would
> do exactly what you have now done?
>
>> It should be noted that this is theory and a Markove/Monte Carlo
>> predictive run would be
>> usefull after emperic statistical sampling.
>
> Markove?
> Emperic?
> Usefull?

THREE speeling flames!

How swete. Now fuck off idiot.

Mark (true-blue) Addinall.

>
> I think you have finally found the right level of intellectual discourse
> for yourself.
>
>> I hope that helped.
>>
>> Mark (true-blue) Addinall
>>
>> addendum: Never, ever, ever, ever, sell an accounting system to a
>> commercial crumpet
>> maker. Nice folk they are, but consider the time they do the bookeeping,
>> and when they
>> require software support.
>>

From:	Harry Snape
Subject:	Re: Repost from elsewhere: Sony Lifestyle by suckmysav
Date:	Sat, 18 Dec 2004 14:35:04 +1100

Mark Addinall wrote:
> "Harry Snape" wrote in message
> news:41c3a118$0$5287$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
>>Mark Addinall wrote:
>>
>>>"Galimatias" wrote in message
>>>news:334zkf7jheofd2n.181220041027@127.0.0.1...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mark Addinall wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Galimatias" wrote in message
>>>>>news:7huv1wqowvy15c1.171220042233@127.0.0.1...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Mark Addinall wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Galimatias" wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:j1hr6rb6tm4c15g.171220042123@127.0.0.1...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Proteus wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Ask
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>OK. How may holes in a crumpet?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>42.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Mark (true-blue) Addinall
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Now I wait for noddy to buy a pack of crumpets and try to count
>>>>>>>the holes. Triumphantly declaring WRONG! Therebye proving he
>>>>>>>is a member of the MISTER RICE and dose damn bleks should be
>>>>>>>gratefull for the crumpets!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>He who asserts must prove. Please post proof of your claim that a
>>>>>>crumpet has 42 holes. BTW, deep and meaningful philosophical
>>>>>>references cut no ice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.. Proof by Obviousness: "The proof is so clear that it need not be
>>>>>mentioned."
>>>>> 2.. Proof by General Agreement: "All in Favor?..."
>>>>>
>>>>> 3.. Proof by Imagination: "Well, We'll pretend its true."
>>>>> 4.. Proof by Convenience: "It would be very nice if it were true,
>>>>>so ..."
>>>>>
>>>>> 5.. Proof by Necessity: "It had better be true or the whole
>>>>>structure of mathematics would crumble to the ground."
>>>>> 6.. Proof by Plausibility: "It sounds good so it must be true."
>>>>>
>>>>> 7.. Proof by Intimidation: "Don't be stupid, of course it's true."
>>>>> 8.. Proof by Lack of Sufficient Time: "Because of the time
>>>>>constraint, I'll leave the proof to you."
>>>>>
>>>>> 9.. Proof by Postponement: "The proof for this is so long and
>>>>>arduous, so it is given in the appendix."
>>>>> 10.. Proof by Accident: "Hey, what have we here?"
>>>>>
>>>>> 11.. Proof by Insignificance: "Who really cares anyway?"
>>>>> 12.. Proof by Mumbo-Jumbo: " For any epsilon> 0 there exists a
>>>>>corresponding delta > 0 s.t. f(x)-L < epsilon whenever x-a < delta"
>>>>>
>>>>> 13.. Proof by Profanity: (example omitted)
>>>>> 14.. Proof by Definition: "We'll define it to be true."
>>>>>
>>>>> 15.. Proof by Tautology: "It's true because it's true."
>>>>> 16.. Proof by Plagiarism: "As we see on page 238 ..."
>>>>>
>>>>> 17.. Proof by Lost Reference: "I know I saw this somewhere ..."
>>>>> 18.. Proof by Calculus: "This proof requires calculus, so we'll
>>>>>skip it."
>>>>>
>>>>> 19.. Proof by Terror: When intimidation fails ...
>>>>> 20.. Proof by Lack of Interest: "Does anyone really want to see
>>>>>this?"
>>>>>
>>>>> 21.. Proof by Illegibility: " ¥ ª Ð Þ þæ"
>>>>> 22.. Proof by Logic: "If it is on the problem sheet, then it must be
>>>>>true."
>>>>>
>>>>> 23.. Proof by Majority Rule: Only to be used if General Agreement is
>>>>>impossible.
>>>>> 24.. Proof by Clever Variable Choice: "Let A be the number such
>>>>>that this proof works."
>>>>>
>>>>> 25.. Proof by Tessellation: "This proof is just the same as the
>>>>>last."
>>>>> 26.. Proof by Divine Word: "And the Lord said, 'Let it be true,'
>>>>>and it came to pass."
>>>>>
>>>>> 27.. Proof by Stubbornness: "I don't care what you say! It is true!"
>>>>> 28.. Proof by Simplification: "This proof reduces to the statement,
>>>>>1 + 1 = 2."
>>>>>
>>>>> 29.. Proof by Hasty Generalization: "Well, it works for 17, so it
>>>>>works for all reals."
>>>>> 30.. Proof by Deception: "Now everyone turn their backs ..."
>>>>>
>>>>> 31.. Proof by Supplication: "Oh please, let it be true."
>>>>> 32.. Proof by Poor Analogy: "Well, it's just like ..."
>>>>>
>>>>> 33.. Proof by Avoidance: Limit of Proof by Postponement as t
>>>>>approaches infinity.
>>>>> 34.. Proof by Design: "If it's not true in today's math, invent a
>>>>>new system in which it is."
>>>>>
>>>>> 35.. Proof by Intuition: "I just have this gut feeling ..."
>>>>> 36.. Proof by Authority: "Well, Bill Gates says it's true, so it
>>>>>must be."
>>>>>
>>>>> 37.. Proof by Vigorous Assertion: "And I REALLY MEAN THAT!"
>>>>> 38.. Proof by A.F.K.T. Theorem: "Any Fool Knows That!"
>>>>>
>>>>> 39.. Proof by vigorous handwaving: Works well in a classroom.
>>>>> 40.. Proof by seduction: "Convince yourself that this is true!"
>>>>>
>>>>> 41.. Proof by accumulated evidence: "Long and diligent search has
>>>>>not revealed a counterexample."
>>>>> 42.. Proof by Divine Intervention: "Then a miracle occurs ..."
>>>>>
>>>>>Which would you like?
>>>>
>>>>I have a choice? Ok. Wrong, by incorrect attribution.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Everyone has a point Obli-Do.
>>>
>>>Given a crumpet MUST have holes, otherwise, a crumpet be it not, rather
>>>soggy bread, AND
>>>the number of the holes must be more than one, for a crumpet with but one
>>>hole, is a
>>>bland doughnut, ergo, the lower bound for n, n = 2. The upper bound for
>>>n is somewhat
>>>more problamatic, the diameter of the said holes, given n = 2 needs to be
>>>less than one half
>>>the diameter of the crumpet, lest the crumpet do some spooky quantum
>>>thingammy,
>>>and we want none of that at the breakfast table my lad. SO let the
>>>diameter of the crumpet
>>>be D, then, the diameter of the holes can be assumed to be < 1/2 . D.
>>>What constitutes a hole?
>>>The measure of space between the atoms of a crumpet is easily enough
>>>calculated (in
>>>an emperical, rather than a quantum model) but does this space constitute
>>>a whole hole?
>>>
>>>This question deserved some research, and in usual manner, I approached
>>>the definition with
>>>some gusto for research, and,
>>>
>>>"So last night, I went to this supermarket that I don't normally go to
>>>get my weekly grub.
>>>I always have crumpets on my list, I love a good crumpet in the morning
>>>with my coffee and/or fruit juice.
>>>It's just something that I do.
>>>Anyway. I thought that a crumpet was a crumpet was a crumpet. My god, how
>>>wrong I was. I picked up this 'Quality Bakers'
>>>packet from the bakery department, not thinking that it would be any
>>>different than the ones I normally have.
>>>5 minutes ago I'm sitting here bored out of my skull and decide it must
>>>be time for a snack. Crack out the toaster, grab
>>>the butter from the fridge (good crumpets must be buttered no more than
>>>10 seconds after popping from the toaster),
>>>and open this packet of crumpets I've got.
>>>These things are flat, a bright white colour, and they've got like 4-5
>>>holes in the top each only.
>>>
>>>WHAT. THE. FUCK.
>>>
>>>What the hell good is a crumpet with such a pathetic amount of holes!?
>>>They sure as hell ain't fluffy, they're like this doughy consistancy, and
>>>when you toast the buggers they don't
>>>get all crisp even after 2 goes through the toaster on full blast!
>>>
>>>Moral of the story - 'Quality Bakers' Crumpets = shit, 'Golden' Crumpets
>>>= Oh my fucking god my taste buds are having an orgasm.
>>>I am one pissed off goddamn motherfucker.
>>>This is how Osama Bin-Laden got started you know. The twin towers would
>>>still be there if they didnt fuck around with the mans crumpets."
>>>
>>>It would seem that five holes is not regarded well. This lifts our
>>>number of holes from a lower bound of n=2
>>>to the lower bound of acceptability of "crumpetness, to n > 5.
>>>
>>>Upon further investigation:
>>>
>>>"Crumpets are British griddle cakes. The batter is poured in metal
>>>rings, and when the cakes have set, the rings
>>>are removed so that the crumpets can be turned over. Crumpets have large
>>>holes"
>>>
>>>Ah HA! Crumpets have LARGE holes! Now we are getting somewhere. How
>>>large?
>>>
>>>They need to be large enough to SEE, or feel with a digit I suppose (for
>>>the visually impaired),
>>>that leads us into cognesis, which Tom is the spurt, myself a mere
>>>beginner. Can we agree that
>>>LARGE (Vis. large enough to define as a "hole" as one one hundreth of the
>>>total crumpet surface
>>>area on one plane (top - front)?
>>>
>>>This seems to define our iterative bounderies, whereas, the hole number n
>>>(sic), must be larger than
>>>5 to satisfy the "It isn't a crumpet" criteria and less than, or equal to
>>>100, where at such a point
>>>the "holes" cease to exist as "meaningful "holes.
>>>
>>>Now with some confidence we may delve into the little used library of
>>>"algorithms" and suggest:
>>>using the Newton-Raphson Iteration. To find a root f(x) = 0 given one
>>>initial approximation
>>>p_0 and using the iteration
>>>
>>>Let k = dx(lower bound,...,upper bound)
>>>
>>> f(p_(k-1))
>>> p_k = p_(k-1) - ----------- for k = 6, 7, ... 100
>>> f'(p_(k-1))
>>>
>>>
>>>seems to round at 42.0006591
>>>
>>>suggesting, that a crumpet, that meets all criteria of "crumpetness", has
>>>approx.
>>>42 servicable "holes".
>>
>>Didn't this all start with you making fun of Ned and saying that he would
>>do exactly what you have now done?

You seemed to miss this, I guess comprehension isn't your strong suit.

>>
>>>It should be noted that this is theory and a Markove/Monte Carlo
>>>predictive run would be
>>>usefull after emperic statistical sampling.
>>
>>Markove?
>>Emperic?
>>Usefull?
>
>
>
> THREE speeling flames!
>

How remarkable, it counts? Did you get special help for this?

> How swete. Now fuck off idiot.

Poor sad Marky. He seems to have a problem when he gets repeatedly shown
to be a sad, ignorant, yet pretentious twerp.

> Mark (true-blue) Addinall.

>
>
>>I think you have finally found the right level of intellectual discourse
>>for yourself.
>>
>>
>>>I hope that helped.
>>>
>>>Mark (true-blue) Addinall
>>>
>>>addendum: Never, ever, ever, ever, sell an accounting system to a
>>>commercial crumpet
>>>maker. Nice folk they are, but consider the time they do the bookeeping,
>>>and when they
>>>require software support.
>>>
>
>
>

From:	Ned Latham
Subject:	Re: Repost from elsewhere: Sony Lifestyle by suckmysav
Date:	19 Dec 2004 14:51:19 +1050

Harry Snape wrote in <41c3a568$0$1123$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>:
> Mark Addinall wrote:
> > Harry Snape wrote:

Nothing relevant to act-b.

----snip----

> > > Didn't this all start with you making fun of Ned and saying that
> > > he would do exactly what you have now done?
>
> You seemed to miss this,

He couldn't answer it.

> I guess comprehension isn't your strong suit.

Projection is one of them.

----snip----

Ned
--
True Blue FAQ:
Public key: http://pgp.mit.edu/ http://www.keyserver.net/en/
Fingerprint: D17C FDD5 BBA8 8687 42E3 C8F2 C9FB 0314 E17A 0CD7

From:	Ned Latham
Subject:	Re: Repost from elsewhere: Sony Lifestyle by suckmysav
Date:	19 Dec 2004 14:48:50 +1050

Muck Addinall, the last surviving specimen of Homo Defectus, wrote
in <_mNwd.76780$K7.76131@news-server.bigpond.net.au>:

Nothing relevant to act-b.

Piss off, troll.

----snip----

Ned
--
True Blue FAQ:
Public key: http://pgp.mit.edu/ http://www.keyserver.net/en/
Fingerprint: D17C FDD5 BBA8 8687 42E3 C8F2 C9FB 0314 E17A 0CD7

From:	Ned Latham
Subject:	Re: Repost from elsewhere: Sony Lifestyle by suckmysav
Date:	19 Dec 2004 14:47:45 +1050

Muck Addinall, the last surviving specimen of Homo Defectus, wrote
in :

Nothing relevant to act-b.

----snip----

> Mark (true-blue) Addinall

You're not true blue, Addinall: you don't even bear a resemblance
to it:

You're an abuser of women:

'I never expected much from a moron that was apparently named after
his mother's equine lover, ...'
-- <3B4A8583.2F2AA039@tik.com.au>

You're a liar, uttering statements you know to be false:

'Ned Latham spammed the net'
-- <246279a.0410201636.4607b15d@posting.google.com>

in 'response' to a message posted into act-b only.

You're a filthmonger, repeatedly slandering me and others with
baseless accusations of child molesting:

'Stan! Still molesting little boys are you?'
-- <246279a.0408262230.28bd5a1e@posting.google.com>

You're a forger, altering people's text in order to slag them off:

'Homo "what is a quote?" Defectus.'
--

altered to:

"Homo Ned"
--

You're a mouth, forever bragging;

You're a sook, *still* trying to get revenge for being embarrassed over
a silly little mistake reading attributions over four *years* ago;

You're a white ant, slagging off people like Stan and me for posting
ideas that might be of benefit to Oz;

You're a coward, trying to intimidate people with threats of violence,
then squibbing out when they take you up on it. So far, you've
squibbed out on Mosley Jones, Gary Meadows, Peter Mackay and me.

----snip----

Piss off, troll.

Ned
--
True Blue FAQ:
Public key: http://pgp.mit.edu/ http://www.keyserver.net/en/
Fingerprint: D17C FDD5 BBA8 8687 42E3 C8F2 C9FB 0314 E17A 0CD7

From:	Anonymous Sender
Subject:	Re: Repost from elsewhere: Sony Lifestyle by suckmysav
Date:	Sun, 19 Dec 2004 14:20:13 +0200

"Ned Latham" wrote in message
news:slrncsa078.9ee.ned@arthur.valhalla.oz...

Nothing relevant to aus.legal,aus.politics,aus.flame.

----snip----

From:	Ned Latham
Subject:	Re: Repost from elsewhere: Sony Lifestyle by suckmysav
Date:	21 Dec 2004 10:56:28 +1050

"Anonymous Sender" wrote in <32l7mtF3nv618U1@individual.net>:
> Ned Latham wrote:
>
> Nothing relevant to aus.legal,aus.politics,aus.flame.

Wrong. The OP was to those groups.

Ned
--
True Blue FAQ:
Public key: http://pgp.mit.edu/ http://www.keyserver.net/en/
Fingerprint: D17C FDD5 BBA8 8687 42E3 C8F2 C9FB 0314 E17A 0CD7