NO YOU FUCKING IDIOT
\s IS THE GLOBAL REGULAR EXPRESSION FOR A FUCKING SPACE
IT JUST TRANSLATES TO A SPACE
I APPRECIATE YOU ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING I SAY HOWEVER
UNLIKE ALL THESE ALPHA FAGGOTS WHO THINK THEY KNOW MORE THAN ME
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-27 21:02
>>161
Spaces are not necessary, fag. I prefer brevity.
Name:
Alpha Male!KBgk.53lJg2010-12-27 21:12
>>162 Spoken like a real man. But this is mathematics, not your mother's kitchen. Cutting corners in a strict and rigorous science is unacceptable no matter how manly you are.
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-27 21:18
>>163
It's not cutting corners, though. Like I said, spaces are unnecessary. People only use them for legibility, but if "1+5=6" is any harder for you to read than "1 + 5 = 6" then you are not very manly.
Name:
Alpha Male!KBgk.53lJg2010-12-27 21:51
>>164 While, for the most part, spaces are indeed an issue of information portrayal, they also constitute the translation of a subject or science. It is a binary operator meant to isolate information, thus instilling meaning.
For example, ``two words'' is not the same word as ``twowords'', by virtue of the specification of the English language granting their context.
Other operators meant to separate but not combine components act in this way as well. Take the comma: foregoing spaces, a list may appear as ``1,2,3,4''. Yet without this operator we gain an entirely confounded meaning, namely, the number one-thousand two-hundred and thirty-four. The same could be said for a variety of symbols.
As you can see, it is in fact necessary to ensure the ``separation of concerns'' when utilizing the expression of a subject or science, giving rise to ambiguity if its conditions are not met.
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-27 21:57
>>161 For the record, my tragically autistic acquaintance, I do know more than you.
Name:
evelyn!lnz9ij4Sjo2010-12-27 22:10
>>165
lol, hold on there buddy. Normally I take your overanalytic trolling humorously... but... well, let's just say there are a few cases which would prove complete exceptions to your argument.
Actually now I'm curious whether >>164 will find them so I'll shut up for now :x
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-27 22:12
>>165
You have no point. "twowords" is not the same as "two words", "1,2,3,4" is not the same as the number one-thousand-two-hundred-and-thirty-four. "However, 1+5=6" is exactly the same statement as "1 + 5 = 6".
Name:
1682010-12-27 22:16
>>168 However, "1+5=6" is the exact same statement as "1 + 5 = 6".
Misplaced a quotation mark
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-27 22:24
Race to the finish!
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-27 23:39
For every post in this series of threads, I will donate 10 cents to autism research.
Name:
!L33tUKZj5I2010-12-27 23:46
Taking part.
Name:
Alpha Male!KBgk.53lJg2010-12-27 23:49
>>168 That's inconsistent and could lead to misinterpretations. Not that a real man isn't afraid to break the current and carve his own path. But why deviate from established practice in a field that requires no innovation, much less really isn't compatible with such? It appears to be an oxymoron.