|
|
Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
|
For Naruki | by rwrannells | 2002-10-18 10:02:05 |
|
I'm not Naruki, | by LionsPhil | 2002-10-18 10:06:30 |
|
Wrong (n/t) | by rwrannells | 2002-10-18 10:14:04 |
|
Right (n/t) | by LionsPhil | 2002-10-18 10:14:58 |
|
Your Lack of Education is Showing | by rwrannells | 2002-10-18 10:20:40 |
|
Your Total And Utter Stupidity Is Showing [sic] | by LionsPhil | 2002-10-18 10:35:15 |
|
That's no fair, either. | by Naruki | 2002-10-18 10:46:05 |
|
Question 2:All Three are True | by rwrannells | 2002-10-18 10:53:01 |
|
Yes. Link. | by LionsPhil | 2002-10-18 10:55:13 |
|
Actually, what he said there is technically | by Arcanum | 2002-10-18 10:57:12 |
|
Ok then, here's a question for rwrannells | by LionsPhil | 2002-10-18 11:01:31 |
| Answers |
by rwrannells |
2002-10-18 11:18:42 |
"Did he actually create that himself (or even understand it), or is it just a quote from some high level maths book/site?"
I did not create or even conceive of the non-euclidean geometries. I have no problem with spherical geometries. Pseudosphereical geometries were about my limit. I could understand part of it and handle the proofs presented but was unable to apply the concepts to build theorems.
"If I have a 'lack of education' (and I will admit that the only version of space I'm used to has x totally perpendicular dimensions), I dread to think of the state of the vast majority of people."
I only asked Naruki. LionsPhil, you answered without fully understanding the question. That is why I said your lack of education is showing. If you have no experience with non-euclidean geometry, then your responce is understandable. It it up to you whether you choose to learn from the experience or not. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
No, your question was incomplete. | by Naruki | 2002-10-18 11:21:01 |
|
How? | by rwrannells | 2002-10-18 11:37:30 |
|
I've given you the link, genius. | by Naruki | 2002-10-18 11:46:31 |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|
