Why are some people so obsessed with notation and lack imagination? I hate these dumb piggots. (pig + faggot)
Take a look at graph theory.
You have terms like "full" and "complete" that describe completely different things. There are dumb formulas everywhere, formulas that are actually very logical and don't need to be described as theorems.
Discrete mathematics feels like mental masturbation taken to an Olympics level. It's like a race to see who can define the most retarded definition ever, instead of thinking about the bigger picture.
"Oh, looks like the number 3 looks like a ballsack, let's call all numbers that contain a 3 the 'ballsack numbers'. Damn, that was fun!"
what's worse is that the names themselves are chosen in a completely illogical and unimaginative way.
Full graph =/= Complete graph
If we're not even using the terms with their real meanings as analogies why not stop giving a shit about their meaning completely?
If full =/= complete then the meaning doesn't matter at all, that's what you can logically conclude.
Why don't we call the full graphs "fag graphs"?
We can call complete graphs the "smelly ones".
>oooh, this graph is a smelly one, it has every level filled out but the last one, pheeew it stinks like hell. It's a smelly graph. Yeah, I'm autistic.
Grayson Nelson
Math is like a zero, powered by negativity and lies. That is the root of the problem here
Liam Thomas
I just thought about another nonsensical definition. I just love making up words and definitions for useless shit.
A graph that has an odd number of nodes is a "poo poo pee pee graph".
Wait, I have another one coming. A number that's made only of ones is a "forever alone" number. We have to make some definition that appeal to the normie students. We need to incorporate some memes in our definitions to spice things up.
Jose Morris
Oh, so we have the ballsack numbers. Good. 3 is a ballsack, that makes sense. We need to construct a dick.
This will be a proof by construction. Let's start with the ballsack, 3. Already proven, trivial, no need to prove it here. (1) Add the shaft, we can use the equals symbol "=".(2) this looks like a shaft. We can add multiple equals for long pen0rs. Let's say if we're trying to model a black gentelman's member we would need to add 10 equal signs, whereas for an average white man we would only need 2 equals. This part is proven.
Now we need to define the head of the penor. We have many choices here, but we will stick with the classical "
Robert White
You were right. There is also the fact that peer review can basically be reduced to an ad populum argument. Knowledge, just like math, is poisoned and made entirely false and null if it contains even one false variable in its argument.
Nathaniel Davis
Are you the person who started slinging personal insults the other day when another user expressed a view that it was desirable to have high grades?
Is this thread a tantrum over getting rekt by a graph theory question you couldn't answer on your babby discrete mathematics test? Perhaps you should try studying more.
Easton Foster
What do you mean? You're acting as if everyone in this board is the same person.
Joseph Walker
...
Jeremiah Cook
>rekt facebook normie detected hahaha that was so funny! rekt! have you also heard about the nihilistic suicide memes from facebook? those are really great, I recommend those. Haha my life sucks I wanna kill myself but I won't.
