>>13
What is his "later self-referential formula"? I fucking hate wikidouchebags who mention something then don't bother elaborating on it. Google turned up no obvious results.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-25 5:27 ID:F/jZPiAc
>>13
Ah, that explains all. The first math article is quite misleadingh
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-25 5:57 ID:IF+/vVhI
>>14
I thought the same thing. That would REALLY be a feat.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-25 12:06 ID:q1/uH6l0
>>15
The first article just assumes that the huge value for n would tip you off. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is written by idiots, for idiots.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-25 22:15 ID:IF+/vVhI
>>17
'J. Tupper concocted the amazing formula' does not sound the same as 'J. Tupper concocted the monochrome bitmap decoding formula'. Wikipedia is just being complete and avoiding false impressions.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-26 2:29 ID:vhGkPWWm
Here's my self-referential graph:
x
-x
HOLY SHIT AN X RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SCREEN
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-26 2:32 ID:U7TteLch
That would have to look like y = x and y = -x. Fail for being a dumbass.
>>20
Fail for not making any sense when criticizing another post.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-26 4:53 ID:U7TteLch
>>21
Fail for just being a dumbass. Read >>19 over. y = x and y = -x do cross and make an x, but the actual functions are - you guessed it - y = x and y = -x. That is what it would have to say to be self-referential in the same sense.