Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #570094 > unrolled thread

Re: Our very own "chinese room"

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Our very own "chinese room" Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-13 06:58 +0200
    Re: Our very own "chinese room" "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-04-13 01:20 -0400
    Re: Our very own "chinese room" Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-04-13 13:23 -0600
    Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-16 07:38 +0200
      Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-16 14:48 +0000
        Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-17 07:35 +0200
          Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-04-17 01:50 -0400
            Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-17 18:08 +0000
              Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-18 07:29 +0200
                Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-18 06:24 +0000
                  Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative Rick Sabian's Allstar Canadian Assworm Zydeco Band <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-04-17 23:28 -0700
                  Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-19 08:28 +0200
    Re: Our very own "chinese room" Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-16 07:58 +0200
      Re: Our very own "chinese room" Rick Sabian's Allstar Canadian Assworm Zydeco Band <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-04-16 00:01 -0700
      Re: fakeys meltdown Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-04-16 02:27 -0600
      Re: Our very own "chinese room" "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-04-16 11:22 -0400
        Re: Our very own "chinese room" Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-17 06:56 +0200
          Re: Our very own "chinese room" "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-04-17 01:20 -0400
            Re: Our very own "chinese room" Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-18 07:19 +0200
          Re: Our very own "chinese room" Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2016-04-16 23:06 -0700
    Re: Our very own "chinese room" Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-16 08:15 +0200
      Re: Our very own "chinese room" Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-17 07:40 +0200
        Re: Our very own "chinese room" "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-04-17 01:53 -0400
        Re: Our very own "chinese room" Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-18 07:04 +0200
          Re: Our very own "chinese room" Skeet <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-04-17 23:56 -0600

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#570094 — Re: Our very own "chinese room"

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

vallor, in <news:dn3n3nFr88hU5@mid.individual.net> did thusly jump
head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:48:46 +0200, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler
> Emeritus wrote:

>> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>> 
>> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard), in
>> <news:pvujgbtu76ehuqggf4266chs72s3f3jra9@4ax.com> did thusly jump head

>>> You still don't have a clue what a derivitive is, or what its inverse
>>> operation is.

>> Shiny Tinfoil Spankard claims the co-functionality of sine and cosine
>> are "inverse operations" and not co-functionality.

> Bub, take a look in the mirror.
> 
> It's clear you're in over your head. Your sentence above is almost a 
> complete non sequitur from what BMSMA just said.  It would be a 
> _complete_ non sequitur if sine and cosine didn't factor in to what was 
> saying.

Bullshit. He was trying to say cosine is the inverse operation of
cosine.

> The inverse operation to the derivative is the integral.

No, the inverse function to the derivative is the integral.

> No matter what the semantics, it's clear this is what he's talking
> about,

If he can't even get the terminology correct, it's pretty apparent he
doesn't know what he's talking about.

> and only the 
> most Derridian wackadoodle deconstructionist would go off on the 
> (literary) tangent that you did intentionally.  But that's not what 
> happened.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_functions_and_differentiation>
In mathematics, the inverse of a function is a function that, in some
fashion, "undoes" the effect (see inverse function for a formal and
detailed definition).

> Ordinarily, I'd be confused why in another post, you would go as far as 
> to state this very fact, then when parsing his statement above, have it 
> go right over your head.
> 
> But there's nothing confusing about that, because you are a chinese room 
> simulation.

Or you're desperately squirming and attempting to dismiss those
"semantics" of using the correct terminology because you so want to
gain even a single point against your Usenet Lord and Master, even if
you have to give that point to the moron Shiny Tinfoil Spankard. LOL

>> The inverse function of cosine is arccosine. The inverse function of
>> sine is arcsine. You're a moron. LOL

> Except he wasn't talking about that, he was talking about the inverse 
> operation of a derivative.

Anw what is this "inverse operation of a derivative"? Hmmmm?

> That _happens_ to be a relationship between sin(x) and cos(x),

You mean co-functionality? Words have meanings, you can't just throw
any old word in there and expect to be right.

> but you've gone off talking about cofunctions and 
> arcsine/arccosine and other irrelevancies that have nothing to do with 
> what BMSMA was talking about.
> 
> So, okay, you're learning something -- I get that.  Go ahead and 
> integrate cos(x), just don't make the common trivial mistake that is the 
> source of some humor among mathematicians.

It would appear that while I'm "learning something", you and Shiny
Tinfoil Spankard are stuck defending his fuckups while learning
nothing. Or while learning something but unable to admit it because
that'd entail admitting your Usenet Lord and Master was right.

<snicker>

>> RUN! SHINY TINFOIL SPANKARD! RUUUUUNNNNNN!!!!

> I think my irony circuits just scrammed.

You don't know the meaning of that word.

<snicker>

-- 

Shiny Tinfoil Spankard (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:
=====================================
MID: <13d33d0638e0ec690b63393d0710f658@dizum.com>
MID: <80d61a6928a9e7df316c519affcf3838@dizum.com>
The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier
Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create
*sinusoids*).

MID: <ff81cb60204ffbd777cd15a6261cfb67@dizum.com>
That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms.

That superposition is the same as wave interference.

That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves.

That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things.

That RMS isn't a DC voltage.

That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207
volts RMS L-L.

That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1.

The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave.

That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical
engineering, physics and control systems engineering.

What a positive or negative vector is.

That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per
Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero.

That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic".

That "gaffe" is not spelled "gaff".

That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2
positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron.

That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* effective
nuclear charge.

What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.

That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples.

That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the
atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law to within 1.337842%
margin of error *worst* *case* at 70 F.

That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of
a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does
*not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames.

That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes
into account molar volume.

That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error".

That water can be plasmized.

That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge.

MID: <382fa822c6dbca9a6f88cab5a104bf62@dizum.com>
That formulas *are* math.

How to use a graphing calculator.

MID: <8e4e21f5748d85599f700ee8ff174611@dizum.com>
What LaTeX notation is.

MID: <8e4e21f5748d85599f700ee8ff174611@dizum.com>
That LaTeX notation *is* "plain text", not a script.

MID: <c1c02875af2c6615bd30ab20416b75b5@dizum.com>
That a formula in LaTeX notation is still a formula.

That scientific notation and LaTeX notation are not the same.
DUURRRHH! GoogleTard. LOL

That LaTeX notation can be copy-n-pasted into a LaTeX compatible
program to view the formula.

That image size != image resolution.

That inverse operations are not inverse functions.

That RMS voltage is a mathematical approximation.

That there are _three_ methods of mathematically approximating RMS
voltage.

The difference between Euler's Theorems and Euler's Formulas.

And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph.
=====================================

Shiny Tinfoil Spankard the Mathematical Moron maunders and mewls:
=====================================
"All you've shown us is graphs of formulas. No equal signs, no maths
done." - Shiny Tinfoil Brain demonstrates his Mathematical Moronism.
=====================================

SPNAK!

<snicker>

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#570098

your post is late

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 00:58:40 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler  
Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> vallor, in <news:dn3n3nFr88hU5@mid.individual.net> did thusly jump
> head first into the wood chipper again:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:48:46 +0200, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler
>> Emeritus wrote:
>
>>> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>>>
>>> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard), in
>>> <news:pvujgbtu76ehuqggf4266chs72s3f3jra9@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
>
>>>> You still don't have a clue what a derivitive is, or what its inverse
>>>> operation is.
>
>>> Shiny Tinfoil Spankard claims the co-functionality of sine and cosine
>>> are "inverse operations" and not co-functionality.
>
>> Bub, take a look in the mirror.
>>
>> It's clear you're in over your head. Your sentence above is almost a
>> complete non sequitur from what BMSMA just said.  It would be a
>> _complete_ non sequitur if sine and cosine didn't factor in to what was
>> saying.
>
> Bullshit. He was trying to say cosine is the inverse operation of
> cosine.
>
>> The inverse operation to the derivative is the integral.
>
> No, the inverse function to the derivative is the integral.
>
>> No matter what the semantics, it's clear this is what he's talking
>> about,
>
> If he can't even get the terminology correct, it's pretty apparent he
> doesn't know what he's talking about.
>
>> and only the
>> most Derridian wackadoodle deconstructionist would go off on the
>> (literary) tangent that you did intentionally.  But that's not what
>> happened.
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_functions_and_differentiation>
> In mathematics, the inverse of a function is a function that, in some
> fashion, "undoes" the effect (see inverse function for a formal and
> detailed definition).
>
>> Ordinarily, I'd be confused why in another post, you would go as far as
>> to state this very fact, then when parsing his statement above, have it
>> go right over your head.
>>
>> But there's nothing confusing about that, because you are a chinese room
>> simulation.
>
> Or you're desperately squirming and attempting to dismiss those
> "semantics" of using the correct terminology because you so want to
> gain even a single point against your Usenet Lord and Master, even if
> you have to give that point to the moron Shiny Tinfoil Spankard. LOL
>
>>> The inverse function of cosine is arccosine. The inverse function of
>>> sine is arcsine. You're a moron. LOL
>
>> Except he wasn't talking about that, he was talking about the inverse
>> operation of a derivative.
>
> Anw what is this "inverse operation of a derivative"? Hmmmm?
>
>> That _happens_ to be a relationship between sin(x) and cos(x),
>
> You mean co-functionality? Words have meanings, you can't just throw
> any old word in there and expect to be right.
>
>> but you've gone off talking about cofunctions and
>> arcsine/arccosine and other irrelevancies that have nothing to do with
>> what BMSMA was talking about.
>>
>> So, okay, you're learning something -- I get that.  Go ahead and
>> integrate cos(x), just don't make the common trivial mistake that is the
>> source of some humor among mathematicians.
>
> It would appear that while I'm "learning something", you and Shiny
> Tinfoil Spankard are stuck defending his fuckups while learning
> nothing. Or while learning something but unable to admit it because
> that'd entail admitting your Usenet Lord and Master was right.
>
> <snicker>
>
>>> RUN! SHINY TINFOIL SPANKARD! RUUUUUNNNNNN!!!!
>
>> I think my irony circuits just scrammed.
>
> You don't know the meaning of that word.
>
> <snicker>
>


-- 
have you heard about the lotusLoser?
he's a loser but he still keeps on tryin'...

2nd verse: (by: bender@the.future)

have you heard about the lotusLoser
beaten by the queen of pembroke each time
have you heard about the lotusLoser
he's a luser but he still keeps on cryin'...

-

LOL

well i guess if we went to:

http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/color-summarizer/

and gave it the URL to the image THAT YOU POSTED IN POST:
<617072d3bd042b9634ebeb7c28503997@dizum.com>

<http://i.imgur.com/gchDiBs.png>

I took that on my way to eat lunch. I tried to make an index card with
backward writing so the SPANKY-SPANKY! reflection would show up with
frontward writing, but apparently I can't write backward legibly, so
you gets what you gets."

it would say "definitely not green", right???

http://i.imgur.com/1CkNIDC.png

D'OH!!!!

*SPNAKITY-SPNAKITY*

-

"People didn't cause the Great Depression, Liberal ko0kTarD. Governmental  
policy did." - Fakey in MID <7880b90ad2ecebe35ba01b4557597d80%40dizum.com>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Depression
"The initial stock market crash triggered a "panic sell-off" that made the  
stock market go even lower."

so... so the "government" panicked, snickers?

funny that a bona-fide conservative horatio alger hero type would want the  
government stepping in to save the stock market.

"Current theories may be broadly classified into two main points of view  
and several heterodox points of view.

First, there are demand-driven theories, from Keynesian and institutional  
economists who argue that the depression was caused by a widespread loss  
of confidence that led to underconsumption. The demand-driven theories  
argue that the financial crisis following the 1929 crash led to a sudden  
and persistent reduction in consumption and investment spending.[1] Once  
panic and deflation set in, many people believed they could avoid further  
losses by keeping clear of the markets. Holding money therefore became  
profitable as prices dropped lower and a given amount of money bought ever  
more goods, exacerbating the drop in demand.

Second, there are the monetarists, who believe that the Great Depression  
started as an ordinary recession, but that significant policy mistakes by  
monetary authorities (especially the Federal Reserve), caused a shrinking  
of the money supply which greatly exacerbated the economic situation,  
causing a recession to descend into the Great Depression. Related to this  
explanation are those who point to debt deflation causing those who borrow  
to owe ever more in real terms."

wait?  what?  no major "third" konservative k0okTheory blaming the  
government for everything mentioned?

odd, that.  eh, lotusLoser?

-

the never-ending saga of fakey's "lotus"...
https://web.archive.org/web/20160408001051/http://i.imgur.com/e3OrQSq.png

-

"sines, sines, everywhere there's sines
blocking up the snickerTurds, breaking his mind"
http://i.imgur.com/Z4p1Z55.png

-

FNVWe attempts to rewrite physics texts in Message-ID:  
<3dcad3dd0a0d39727506717506883c26@dizum.com>

">>let's not forget that mine also had the correct applied mathematics
>> equations unlike fakey the supposed know-it-all:
>>  phase A: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x)
>> phase B: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi)
>>  voltage difference between phase A and phase B at any point x in time:
>> 120*sin(2*pi*60*x) - 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi) = 240*sin(2*pi*60*x)

Wrong, as has already been proven. What does it say below, you fecking  
*moron*?

"The _sum_ E(θ) ≡ E(a) + E(b) can be written thusly:""

it says that you don't even know how to correctly apply mathematics to  
real-world AC electricity, snickerTurds.  it says that you're in denial  
about the inversion of your AC legs.

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/alternating-current/chpt-10/single-phase-power-systems/
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/02170.png
"To mathematically calculate voltage between “hot” wires, we must subtract  
voltages, because their polarity marks show them to be opposed to each  
other:"
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/12112.png

http://www.samlexamerica.com/support/documents/WhitePaper-120240VACSingleSplitPhaseandMultiWireBranchCircuits.pdf

on page 2:

** NOTE: The phase of Hot Leg 2 (Phase B) is in the
  opposite direction - i.e., 180° apart from the phase
  of Hot Leg L1 (Phase A)

*COUGH*
SPNAK!!

-

i know a guy on the internet who will draw a triangular sine wave in ASCII  
art if you ask nicely.</GROUCHO MARX>
see: Message-ID: <4ba4a50aaaebc7fb8a348293c5cf9f13@dizum.com>

-

snickerTurds can't seem to refute the following:

- begin snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --
/*
HOW TO RUN: download arbitrary precision libraries from:

http://www.hvks.com/Numerical/arbitrary_precision.html

place those files in a directory and save this file as  
snickerSinewaveStew.cpp inside that same directory.

compiles with:

gcc -Wall -I. precisioncore.cpp snickerSinewaveStew.cpp -lstdc++

run with:

./a.out

enjoy the LULZ ;)

*/
#include <fprecision.h>
#include <iostream.h>

using namespace std;

int main(){

   //float_precision MIN=float_precision(0);
   //float_precision MAX=float_precision(0);

   float_precision STEP=float_precision(.0001);
   float_precision t=float_precision(0);    // time variable
   float_precision sum=float_precision(0);  // sum of SnickerTurd's  
ridiculous sinewave mess
   float_precision snickerPrediction=float_precision(2550.25);  //  
snickerTurd's erroneous k0oK-k'lame Sum
   float_precision PI;
   PI =_float_table(_PI,25);

   // this while loop will run forever, but snickers doesn't understand why
   while(sum < snickerPrediction){

     // fakey's Sinewave Stew(TM) see: MID:  
<db672705e57e4932eba3632562e0a941@dizum.com>
     sum = (float_precision(150) * float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(120)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(20.25) * float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(33)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(1400)* float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(150)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +(float_precision(20)*  
float_precision(sin(float_precision(5013)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(600)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(13)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)))  
+  
(float_precision(360)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(1209)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)));

     // perhaps show a few values larger than +2300 to educate teh  
snickerTurds
     if(sum>float_precision(2300)){
       cout << "t=" << t << " sum=" << sum << std::endl;
     }
     t = t+STEP;
   }
/*

Message-ID: <c8523e6d9c31e3282bbe581fa525a2a8@dizum.com>
"Oh, yeah... it's 2550.25 volts... so why does your graph not even
reach 2500 volts, given that eventually all the sinewaves will
constructively interfere (ie: *add* to each other) to *sum* to 2550.25
volts?"

Fakey, it doesn't reach 2500 volts because the summation of your sinewaves  
never reaches that.  They never reach their max values at the same time.   
That's how stupid you are.

Message-ID: <731d08dcc702b9a8a13077ffc201e91f@dizum.com>
"I most certainly *did* prove otherwise. It can't even arrive at the
correct sinewave summation voltage of 2550.25 volts"

Fakey, you only *proved* that you are too inept to graph the equations and  
notice a few things about the interactions of their frequencies when  
summed.

the next line of code is never executed, but snickers DEFINITELY can't  
figure out why it isn't and instead has a bunch of lame excuses while  
still having not produced a value for t where the sum=2550.25, as he has  
k0okily proklamed in many usenet messages that are archived FOREVER.

*/
   cout << "snickerTurds was right! the sum is " << sum << " at time t=" <<  
t <<endl;
}
- end snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --

-

Fakey irrationally demands a theme song to foam to:
"all I really want your pathetic pwned ass to do is write me a classic  
rock song as tribute to your Usenet Lord and Master..."  
<f4f9193fa7d28b760a9de681e61427e7@dizum.com>

-

Somewhere Abouts Round Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:25:03 -0500, Friendly  
Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

<snicker>

Fag. LOL
Idiot. LOL
Moron. LOL
Tranny. LOL
Libtard. LOL
Crackhead. LOL
GableTard. LOL
DildoRider. LOL
Bad Musician. LOL
Stick Figure. LOL
Terrible Liar. LOL
Sinewave Spammer. LOL
Outerfilthing Stalker. LOL
Talentless FrothMonkey. LOL
Math Challenged Halfwit. LOL
Klimate Katastrophe Kook. LOL
Defeated Tearful Spankard. LOL
Waster Of Time To Save $10. LOL
Worst Maker Of Sinewaves In The History Of Usenet. LOL

<the band strikes up a rousing version of "on top of old smokey">

on top of old snick-ers, all covered with Fag. LOL
is where my usenet lord and mas-ter
can go straight to hell*

*hell doesn't exist.  hope everybody is having a productive evening.

-

http://i.imgur.com/2tH6zVB.jpg

http://cafepress.com/kooktown

http://i.imgur.com/pnWqhSG.jpg

-

If my poasts are offensive to you, you can always block all From: headers  
containing "root@127.0.0.1", unless you are an idiot who would like to  
yammer about "morphing" and maybe try to lodge some frivolous complaints  
to my news provider, then please be sure to ignore this helpful  
information and have fun making an ass of yourself in public.  :)

if that route of silencing those horrid opinions of mine that you  
downloaded to your computer under duress doesn't work you can always try:  
http://i.imgur.com/jlsN9JX.png?2

-

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
The Gish Gallop is often used as an indirect argument from authority — as  
it appears to paint the galloper as an expert in a broad range of subjects  
or with an extensive knowledge of an individual one. Simultaneously it  
presents opponents (in spoken debates) or refuters (in written,  
Internet-based ones) as incompetent bumblers who didn't do their homework  
before the debate. Such emphasis on style over substance is the reason  
many scientists disdain public debates as a forum for disseminating  
opinions. - Page #1 from the Gospel of SnickerTurd

-

Coming soon!  To a newsgroup near you!:

$ perl fakeyBot.pl
FakeyBot>       I'm FakeyBot. What's your name so I can Google-stalk you,  
look you up on Radaris, and hurl invective and probably-illegal harrassing  
bile from behind an anonymous dizum account?  <snicker>
You>    Robert Michael Wolfe
FakeyBot>       Oh look, you're back again to polish my size 16 steel-toed  
boot with your colon and listen to me talk about bestiality and cocks,  
Robert. <snicker>
Robert> you talk about cocks a lot.
FakeyBot>       Oh, I talk about sex a lot?
Robert> gay sex, mostly...
FakeyBot>       Fag!

(just as useful as the original!)

-

snickers the wonderturd describes how he alerted lots of his kiddie pr0n  
friends to the ensuing FBI sting in message  
<b5e7da79a455d0c9227b1b50e25e7ea1@dizum.com>:
"That's easy enough to do... how do you think my crew uncovered the
largest CP ring using Tor and I2P, which we promptly turned over to
the FBI? I discovered a way to uncover the IP addresses the I2P users were  
using, and a way of tracking Eepsites back to their IP addresses, then we  
figured out that we could DDOS a Tor IP address and modify Tor headers  
while checking whether a Tor hidden service was still up, then using  
process of elimination to pinpoint the IP address hosting that hidden  
service. It's not rocket science.

_The I2P community got all up in arms when I discussed on their forum how  
I was doing it, and that it'd be a good way of cleaning up I2P so it can  
get on with being a platform to research anonymous communication... my  
distinct impression was that the "anonymity
research platform" story was just a cover story to allow pervs to
trade CP._  (NOTE: admits to participating in what he "suspected" was a  
kiddie pr0n network.)

That Silk Road 2.0 was taken offline in the ensuing FBI Operation
Onymous was just icing on the cake."

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016

 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#570219

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 06:58:40 +0200 (CEST), Friendly Neighborhood Vote
Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

>Or you're desperately squirming and attempting to dismiss those
>"semantics" of using the correct terminology


Oh teh Irony

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#570868 — Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

vallor, in <news:dncv8iF8ojjU1@mid.individual.net> did thusly jump
head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 18:09:51 +0800, Bite My Shiny Metal Ass
> (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard) wrote:

>> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:

>>> Bwahahahaaa! Shiny Tinfoil Spankard is now claiming that x^2 is a
>>> trigonometric function whose value for the complement of an angle is
>>> equal to the value of 2x of the angle itself.

> I ALREADY TOLD YOU that that isn't what a derivative is.

I know that, and you know that... perhaps you should teach Shiny
Tinfoil Spankard what a derivative is. LOL

> The derivative gives the slope of the line tangent to the curve
> for varying values of x.

The first derivative, yes. But then I've known that for years... stock
trading kind of requires knowing that when you're programming your own
indicators.

> This is useful for finding a curve's minimum or maximum (where the 
> slope will be 0).

It's useful for a lot more than that. One must find the first
derivative before one can find the second or third, after all.

> (Hopefully this is still taught with a unit on graphing curves by hand.  
> I really don't know, maybe someone else can chime in.)

>>> What's the angle of x^2 and 2x, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard? Are you
>>> confused, Mathematical Moron? Yeah you are. LOL

>> Rolf & Lol! with a bwahaha too.

> I'm glad you caught that, I totally missed it.  (Got just a couple of 
> paragraphs into his post, then ennui set in.)

You caught Shiny Tinfoil Spankard wondering why x^2 and 2x aren't
co-functions? That's because he's a confused little kooktard.
Remember, he's the moron who confused the mathematical derivatives
using stock trading indicators with stock options. LOL

> Let's see if we can generate a koan-like moment
> for the budding mathematician:
> 
>    d/dx( 2x^3 + 69 ) = 6x^2

d/dx(2x^3 + 69) = (3*(2x)^2 + 0) = 6x^2 = 2*6x = 12x

Did you forget to simplify? LOL

>    d/dx( 4x^2 )      = 8x

d/dx(4x^2) = 2*(4x) = 8x

>    d/dx( 4x^2 + 7x + 3 ) = 8x + 7

d/dx(4x^2 + 7x +3) = (2*(4x) + 7 + 0) = 8x + 7

> DO YOU GET IT YET?

I always have gotten it. You should try teaching Shiny Tinfoil
Spankard. LOL

> You can't fake knowing math.

Says the guy who fucked up above. LOL

> Prediction:  the response to this will be "jess trollin'".

Wrong. Again. LOL

> Finally, the eager student asked:

>>> What's the angle of x^2 and 2x, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard?

> Since 2x is the slope of the curve tangent to f(x) = x^2 for varying 
> values of x, your question doesn't even half make sense.

That was the point, Idjit. Shiny Tinfoil Spankard asking if x^2 and 2x
were co-functions didn't even half make sense, so I highlighted that
by asking him a question he couldn't possibly answer because it has no
answer.

> And I hesitate 
> to give a sensible answer regarding 2x for a specific point x, because 
> _that_ does use trigonometry, but not for the reasons you think.
> for r = sin(theta), r is the ratio, and theta is the angle.  But let's 
> take that example of x^2 for x = 5 (picked out of thin air)
> and see what we get:
> 
> x = 5
> f(x) = (5)^2 = 25
> d/dx( f(x) ) = 2x; for x = 5, this is 10
> 
> So we know a few things about that point on the curve:
> 
> It is at (x,y) = (5,25).
> The slope of the point tangent to the curve at (5,25) is 10.
> 
> What is the slope?  It is the ratio of y/x.
> So the "angle of 2x" for x=5 
> would be solved by using the trigonometric function that solves for y/x 
> ratios -- arctan.  (Remember tangents?  This is a song about tangents.)

But we're not talking about the slope of x^2, we're talking about the
slope of its derivative, for which the only two true conditions are
[0,0] and [2,4].

> $ mbc.sh
> My bc
> bc 1.06.95
> Copyright 1991-1994, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2004, 2006 Free Software 
> Foundation, Inc.
> This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
> For details type `warranty'. 
> arctan(10)
> 1.47112767430373459185287557176173085185530637718323
> 
> So there's your answer in radians, Cadet Fakey.
> 
> Oh, you want that in degrees?
> 
> 2*pi()
> 6.28318530717958647692528676655900576839433879875020
> 1.47112767430373459185287557176173085185530637718323/.
> .23413724128472321524251144069934899969033566370304
> .*360
> 84.28940686250035748730411865176563988852083893309440
> 
> So the curve x^2 at that point (5,25) is about 6 degrees from vertical, 
> leaning to the right...political pun not intended.

It's just as easy to graph it.

<http://i.imgur.com/x2Z9U7s.png>
<http://i.imgur.com/emGGhNA.png>

Gee... I got the same answers you did. Seems I have an intuitive grasp
on the mechanics and the mathematics of it, whereas Shiny Tinfoil
Spankard has yet to produce even a single graph *or* correct equation.
LOL

Now... what's all that got to do with the fact that Shiny Tinfoil
Spankard is a backpedaling bleatfarting blither-blathering liar
desperately raping Google for diversionary topics to cover up his
having been SPNAK!d silly, as outlined in my .sig?

<snicker>

-- 

Shiny Tinfoil Spankard (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:
=====================================
MID: <13d33d0638e0ec690b63393d0710f658@dizum.com>
MID: <80d61a6928a9e7df316c519affcf3838@dizum.com>
The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier
Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create
*sinusoids*).

MID: <ff81cb60204ffbd777cd15a6261cfb67@dizum.com>
That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms.

That superposition is the same as wave interference.

That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves.

That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things.

That RMS isn't a DC voltage.

That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207
volts RMS L-L.

That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1.

The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave.

That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical
engineering, physics and control systems engineering.

What a positive or negative vector is.

That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per
Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero.

That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic".

That "gaffe" is not spelled "gaff".

That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2
positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron.

That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* effective
nuclear charge.

What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.

That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples.

That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the
atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law to within 1.337842%
margin of error *worst* *case* at 70 F.

That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of
a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does
*not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames.

That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes
into account molar volume.

That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error".

That water can be plasmized.

That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge.

MID: <382fa822c6dbca9a6f88cab5a104bf62@dizum.com>
That formulas *are* math.

How to use a graphing calculator.

MID: <8e4e21f5748d85599f700ee8ff174611@dizum.com>
What LaTeX notation is.

MID: <8e4e21f5748d85599f700ee8ff174611@dizum.com>
That LaTeX notation *is* "plain text", not a script.

MID: <c1c02875af2c6615bd30ab20416b75b5@dizum.com>
That a formula in LaTeX notation is still a formula.

That scientific notation and LaTeX notation are not the same.
DUURRRHH! GoogleTard. LOL

That LaTeX notation can be copy-n-pasted into a LaTeX compatible
program to view the formula.

That image size != image resolution.

That inverse operations are not inverse functions.

That RMS voltage is a mathematical approximation.

That there are _three_ methods of mathematically approximating RMS
voltage.

The difference between Euler's Theorems and Euler's Formulas.

That x^2 and 2x are not co-functions.

And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph.
=====================================

Shiny Tinfoil Spankard the Mathematical Moron maunders and mewls:
=====================================
"All you've shown us is graphs of formulas. No equal signs, no maths
done." - Shiny Tinfoil Brain demonstrates his Mathematical Moronism.
=====================================

SPNAK!

<snicker>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#570910 — Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative

On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 07:38:38 +0200, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler
Emeritus wrote:

> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
> 
> vallor, in <news:dncv8iF8ojjU1@mid.individual.net> did thusly jump head
> first into the wood chipper again:
> 
>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 18:09:51 +0800, Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny
>> Tinfoil Spankard) wrote:
> 
>>> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:
> 
>>>> Bwahahahaaa! Shiny Tinfoil Spankard is now claiming that x^2 is a
>>>> trigonometric function whose value for the complement of an angle is
>>>> equal to the value of 2x of the angle itself.
> 
>> I ALREADY TOLD YOU that that isn't what a derivative is.
> 
> I know that, and you know that... perhaps you should teach Shiny Tinfoil
> Spankard what a derivative is. LOL
> 
>> The derivative gives the slope of the line tangent to the curve for
>> varying values of x.
> 
> The first derivative, yes. But then I've known that for years... stock
> trading kind of requires knowing that when you're programming your own
> indicators.
> 
>> This is useful for finding a curve's minimum or maximum (where the
>> slope will be 0).
> 
> It's useful for a lot more than that. One must find the first derivative
> before one can find the second or third, after all.
> 
>> (Hopefully this is still taught with a unit on graphing curves by hand.
>> I really don't know, maybe someone else can chime in.)
> 
>>>> What's the angle of x^2 and 2x, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard? Are you
>>>> confused, Mathematical Moron? Yeah you are. LOL
> 
>>> Rolf & Lol! with a bwahaha too.
> 
>> I'm glad you caught that, I totally missed it.  (Got just a couple of
>> paragraphs into his post, then ennui set in.)
> 
> You caught Shiny Tinfoil Spankard wondering why x^2 and 2x aren't
> co-functions?

He never did that.

> That's because he's a confused little kooktard.

Looks more like you are _very_ confused.

> Remember,
> he's the moron who confused the mathematical derivatives using stock
> trading indicators with stock options. LOL

He uses them to compute the price of tea in China.

> 
>> Let's see if we can generate a koan-like moment for the budding
>> mathematician:
>> 
>>    d/dx( 2x^3 + 69 ) = 6x^2
> 
> d/dx(2x^3 + 69) = (3*(2x)^2 + 0) = 6x^2 = 2*6x = 12x
> 
> Did you forget to simplify? LOL

That isn't "simplifying" you did, you took the second derivative.

No where in my post did I try to muddy the waters with second 
derivatives, I was talking about the basics.  Obviously.

So you get an "A" for effort, but I'm going to have to mark you down for 
being over-enthusiastic with the process.

> 
>>    d/dx( 4x^2 )      = 8x
> 
> d/dx(4x^2) = 2*(4x) = 8x
> 
>>    d/dx( 4x^2 + 7x + 3 ) = 8x + 7
> 
> d/dx(4x^2 + 7x +3) = (2*(4x) + 7 + 0) = 8x + 7
> 
>> DO YOU GET IT YET?
> 
> I always have gotten it.

Sure, sure.

> You should try teaching Shiny Tinfoil Spankard.
> LOL

I'll let you in on an open secret:

He knows more about this than you do.

> 
>> You can't fake knowing math.
> 
> Says the guy who fucked up above. LOL

Actually, no, it was you who over-enthusiastically took the second 
derivative when all we were dealing with were first derivatives.

> 
>> Prediction:  the response to this will be "jess trollin'".
> 
> Wrong. Again. LOL

Except, see below...


> 
>> Finally, the eager student asked:
> 
>>>> What's the angle of x^2 and 2x, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard?
> 
>> Since 2x is the slope of the curve tangent to f(x) = x^2 for varying
>> values of x, your question doesn't even half make sense.
> 
> That was the point, Idjit. Shiny Tinfoil Spankard asking if x^2 and 2x
> were co-functions didn't even half make sense, so I highlighted that by
> asking him a question he couldn't possibly answer because it has no
> answer.
> 
>> And I hesitate to give a sensible answer regarding 2x for a specific
>> point x, because _that_ does use trigonometry, but not for the reasons
>> you think.
>> for r = sin(theta), r is the ratio, and theta is the angle.  But let's
>> take that example of x^2 for x = 5 (picked out of thin air)
>> and see what we get:
>> 
>> x = 5 f(x) = (5)^2 = 25 d/dx( f(x) ) = 2x; for x = 5, this is 10
>> 
>> So we know a few things about that point on the curve:
>> 
>> It is at (x,y) = (5,25).
>> The slope of the point tangent to the curve at (5,25) is 10.
>> 
>> What is the slope?  It is the ratio of y/x.
>> So the "angle of 2x" for x=5 would be solved by using the trigonometric
>> function that solves for y/x ratios -- arctan.  (Remember tangents? 
>> This is a song about tangents.)
> 
> But we're not talking about the slope of x^2,

Actually, we are.  In purely mathematical terms, that's what a derivative 
is _for_.

Let's take the case of when you were dropped on your head as a child.

The formula for the distance covered is d = (1/2)At^2.

In english units, acceleration of Earth's gravity is approximately 32 ft/
sec/sec.  I'll leave off the units, and you can see how this works.

d = -16t^2

This is a parabola.  First derivative (as you point out elsewhere) give 
velocity:

s = -32t

This is a straight line, but its units are in a different frame of 
reference.  You don't plot this line with the parabola and hope to see 
something meaningful -- you use this resulting formula (the first 
derivative) to develop the formula that gives you a line tangent to the 
curve for any given x.

> we're talking about the
> slope of its derivative, for which the only two true conditions are
> [0,0] and [2,4].

I'm afraid you're still confused.

>> arctan(10)
>> 1.47112767430373459185287557176173085185530637718323
>> 
>> So there's your answer in radians, Cadet Fakey.
>> 
>> Oh, you want that in degrees?
>> 84.28940686250035748730411865176563988852083893309440
>> 
>> So the curve x^2 at that point (5,25) is about 6 degrees from vertical,
>> leaning to the right...political pun not intended.
> 
> It's just as easy to graph it.
> 
> <http://i.imgur.com/x2Z9U7s.png>
> <http://i.imgur.com/emGGhNA.png>
> 
> Gee... I got the same answers you did.

No you didn't, you graphed formulas that are only orthogonally related to 
each other.

Let me show you what it looks like closer to the origin:

x = 3
f(x) = x^2
so for the point in question, you have (3,9)
d/dx(f(x)) = 2x
so the slope of the line tangent to the curve at (3,9) is 6.

But that is the slope of the line _that passes through 3,9_.  So the 
formula for _that_ line -- the line that would make sense to graph with 
it -- is

[ insert here:  you know the formula for the line of a given slope
is y=mx+c, I hope, where "m" is the slope.  If not, then welcome to first 
semester algebra.]

y = 6x + c, where "c" is some constant to make the line pass through 
(3,9).  (That is to say, the value of y when x=0).

So solve for c:

9 = 6(3) +c
c = -9

So the line that makes sense to plot with the parabola is:

y = 6x-9

*NOW* you can start plotting:

   http://imgur.com/PMbfGPj

The _line_ I plotted is tangent to the curve at (3,9).  It passes through 
(3,9), and it's "parallel" (instantaneously) at that point.

All the derivative gives you is the _slope_ of the line I plotted -- but 
you still need to figure out the formula for the line, and that changes 
from point to point.

_That_ is how you use a derivative.  Look at the graph.  Do you see now?


> Seems I have an intuitive grasp
> on the mechanics and the mathematics of it,

I'm afraid not, you just plotted a bunch of functions that were 
orthogonally related, but not the line that would have been obvious to 
plot, given what a derivative is _for_.

Unless you can come up with some kind of utility to plotting the line 
indicated by the formula that gives you the slope of a line tangent to 
the curve at a given point, I'd have to say you're utterly at sea.

(Say...are you on a bote?)

> whereas Shiny Tinfoil
> Spankard has yet to produce even a single graph *or* correct equation.
> LOL

But he knows how to take a derivative, and doesn't call them "co-
functions" (or claim that other people are using the term when they 
clearly haven't).

> 
> Now... what's all that got to do with the fact that Shiny Tinfoil
> Spankard is a backpedaling bleatfarting blither-blathering liar
> desperately raping Google

You know, you'd get a lot farther in this process if you'd learn a little 
charity.

I'm x-posting this to afn so that interested parties that can't 
participate in this group can comment.

-- 
Won a Checky(tm) on 2016-04-15
 ...for schooling a kook about derivatives.
(Including working through a sample problem.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#571142 — Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

vallor, in <news:dnf1lrFddd5U22@mid.individual.net> did thusly jump
head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 07:38:38 +0200, Friendly Neighborhood
> Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>> I'm glad you caught that, I totally missed it.  (Got just a couple of
>>> paragraphs into his post, then ennui set in.)

>> You caught Shiny Tinfoil Spankard wondering why x^2 and 2x aren't
>> co-functions?

> He never did that.

Sure he did.

"The derivative of x^2 is 2x. Does that make them also co-functions?"

>> That's because he's a confused little kooktard.

> Looks more like you are _very_ confused.

Not really, you're just shifting the goal-posts and being ambiguous in
your diversionary bleating. LOL

>>> Let's see if we can generate a koan-like moment for the budding
>>> mathematician:
>>> 
>>>    d/dx( 2x^3 + 69 ) = 6x^2
>> d/dx(2x^3 + 69) = (3*(2x)^2 + 0) = 6x^2 = 2*6x = 12x

Correct. LOL

>> Did you forget to simplify? LOL

> That isn't "simplifying" you did, you took the second derivative.
> 
> No where in my post did I try to muddy the waters with second 
> derivatives, I was talking about the basics.  Obviously.

You didn't specify what your goal was.

> So you get an "A" for effort, but I'm going to have to mark you down for 
> being over-enthusiastic with the process.

Awww, he thinks he's a teacher... and he can't even read a graph. LOL

>>>    d/dx( 4x^2 )      = 8x
>> d/dx(4x^2) = 2*(4x) = 8x

Correct.

>>>    d/dx( 4x^2 + 7x + 3 ) = 8x + 7
>> d/dx(4x^2 + 7x +3) = (2*(4x) + 7 + 0) = 8x + 7

Correct.

>> You should try teaching Shiny Tinfoil Spankard. LOL

> I'll let you in on an open secret:
> 
> He knows more about this than you do.

Really? Is that why he denied that a sinusoid is a transform of a
circle; denied that wave interference and superposition are the same
thing; denied that sin^2 is a sinusoid; claimed that "within 10%
error" equaled "10% error"; didn't know what LaTeX notation was or
that there's a formula in that plain text LaTeX notation (he thought
it was a script. LOL!); didn't know what the "co" in cosine means nor
what co-functionality was nor the difference between inverse
operations and cofunctionality; didn't know that finding the
anti-derivative is the same as finding the integral; denied that stock
trading requires mathematical derivatives; claimed that mathematical
derivatives as used in stock trading are stock options; demonstrated
that he didn't know what the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus is;
demonstrated that he didn't know that the derivative of a constant is
always equal to zero; claimed that no math was being done unless an
equal sign was in there somewhere; confused a formula and an equation;
and completely fucked up the definitions of the first, second and
third derivatives? Amongst many other of his hilarious fuckups. LOL

>>> You can't fake knowing math.

>> Says the guy who fucked up above. LOL

> Actually, no, it was you who over-enthusiastically took the second 
> derivative when all we were dealing with were first derivatives.

Ok, so I went over your head. I'm marking you down for that. LOL

>>> Prediction:  the response to this will be "jess trollin'".

>> Wrong. Again. LOL

> Except, see below...

Still wrong. Again. LOL

>>> And I hesitate to give a sensible answer regarding 2x for a specific
>>> point x, because _that_ does use trigonometry, but not for the reasons
>>> you think. for r = sin(theta), r is the ratio, and theta is the angle.
>>> But let's take that example of x^2 for x = 5 (picked out of thin air)
>>> and see what we get:
>>> x = 5 f(x) = (5)^2 = 25 d/dx( f(x) ) = 2x; for x = 5, this is 10
>>> 
>>> So we know a few things about that point on the curve:
>>> It is at (x,y) = (5,25).
>>> The slope of the point tangent to the curve at (5,25) is 10.
>>> 
>>> What is the slope?  It is the ratio of y/x.
>>> So the "angle of 2x" for x=5 would be solved by using the trigonometric
>>> function that solves for y/x ratios -- arctan.  (Remember tangents? 
>>> This is a song about tangents.)

>> But we're not talking about the slope of x^2,

> Actually, we are.  In purely mathematical terms, that's what a derivative 
> is _for_.

And what's the derivative of x^2? Oh, it's 2x. So yet again I'm
correct. LOL

> Let's take the case of when you were dropped on your head as a child.

Fanfic. LOL

> The formula for the distance covered is d = (1/2)At^2.
> 
> In english units, acceleration of Earth's gravity is approximately 32 ft/
> sec/sec.  I'll leave off the units, and you can see how this works.
> 
> d = -16t^2
> 
> This is a parabola.  First derivative (as you point out elsewhere) give 
> velocity:
> 
> s = -32t
> 
> This is a straight line,

The equation for free-fall distance (discounting air resistance and
buoyancy effects) due to gravitational acceleration is:
y=\frac{1}{2}(9.80665\cdot x^2)

The instantaneous velocity of a falling object due solely to
gravitational acceleration (discounting air resistance and buoyancy
effects) that has traveled distance x is:
y=\sqrt{2\cdot 9.80665\cdot \left(\frac{1}{2}\left(9.80665\cdot
x^2\right)\right)}

Thus (taken straight from the graph):
Time:        Distance Fallen:     Vi:
1 second     4.903 m              9.807 m/sec
2 seconds    19.613 m             19.613 m/sec
3 seconds    44.13 m              29.42 m/sec

Compare that to your equation.
Time:        Distance Fallen:        Vi:
1 second     16 feet (4.9768 m)      32 feet/sec (9.7535 m/sec)
2 seconds    64 feet (19.5072 m)     64 feet/sec (19.5072 m/sec)
3 seconds    144 feet (43.8912 m)    96 feet/sec (29.2609 m/sec)

<http://i.imgur.com/5fT3sCp.png>

> but its units are in a different frame of reference. You don't plot
> this line with the parabola and hope to see something meaningful

Huh, I just did. You apparently can't. LOL

> -- you use this resulting formula (the first derivative) to develop
> the formula that gives you a line tangent to the curve for any given x.

>> we're talking about the slope of its derivative, for which the only
>> two true conditions are [0,0] and [2,4].

> I'm afraid you're still confused.

Says the guy who can't figure out how to read a graph. Do you not
understand that the graph represents the equations, and can thus be
used to figure out the same results as the equations? Are ya skooled
yet? LOL

>>> arctan(10)
>>> 1.47112767430373459185287557176173085185530637718323
>>> 
>>> So there's your answer in radians, Cadet Fakey.
>>> 
>>> Oh, you want that in degrees?
>>> 84.28940686250035748730411865176563988852083893309440
>>> 
>>> So the curve x^2 at that point (5,25) is about 6 degrees from vertical,
>>> leaning to the right...political pun not intended.

>> It's just as easy to graph it.
>> <http://i.imgur.com/x2Z9U7s.png>
>> <http://i.imgur.com/emGGhNA.png>
>> Gee... I got the same answers you did.

> No you didn't,

Yeah. I did. Same angle in radians and degrees as you got. LOL

> you graphed formulas that are only orthogonally related to each other.

I got the correct answers. Again. LOL

> Let me show you what it looks like closer to the origin:
> x = 3
> f(x) = x^2
> so for the point in question, you have (3,9)

That's exactly what I got. LOL

<http://i.imgur.com/sO60qV6.png>

> d/dx(f(x)) = 2x
> so the slope of the line tangent to the curve at (3,9) is 6.

That's exactly what I got. LOL

<http://i.imgur.com/sO60qV6.png>

> But that is the slope of the line _that passes through 3,9_.  So the 
> formula for _that_ line -- the line that would make sense to graph with 
> it -- is
> 
> [ insert here:  you know the formula for the line of a given slope
> is y=mx+c, I hope, where "m" is the slope.  If not, then welcome to first 
> semester algebra.]
> 
> y = 6x + c, where "c" is some constant to make the line pass through 
> (3,9).  (That is to say, the value of y when x=0).
> 
> So solve for c:
> 
> 9 = 6(3) +c
> c = -9
> 
> So the line that makes sense to plot with the parabola is:
> y = 6x-9
> 
> *NOW* you can start plotting:
>    http://imgur.com/PMbfGPj
> 
> The _line_ I plotted is tangent to the curve at (3,9).  It passes through 
> (3,9), and it's "parallel" (instantaneously) at that point.
> 
> All the derivative gives you is the _slope_ of the line I plotted -- but 
> you still need to figure out the formula for the line, and that changes 
> from point to point.
> 
> _That_ is how you use a derivative.  Look at the graph.  Do you see now?

And that gives 80.538 degrees, or 1.40565 radians, at that point.

<http://i.imgur.com/a1KIqCN.png>

Gee... I was right. Again. Why can't you read a graph? Are ya skooled
yet? LOL

>> Seems I have an intuitive grasp on the mechanics and the mathematics of it,

> I'm afraid not, you just plotted a bunch of functions that were 
> orthogonally related, but not the line that would have been obvious to 
> plot, given what a derivative is _for_.
> 
> Unless you can come up with some kind of utility to plotting the line 
> indicated by the formula that gives you the slope of a line tangent to 
> the curve at a given point, I'd have to say you're utterly at sea.

Is that why I've gotten it right twice now, with even greater accuracy
than you could manage in the second instance? LOL

> (Say...are you on a bote?)

Paranoid fanfic.

>> whereas Shiny Tinfoil Spankard has yet to produce even a single
>> graph *or* correct equation. LOL

> But he knows how to take a derivative, and doesn't call them "co-
> functions" (or claim that other people are using the term when they 
> clearly haven't).

Shiny Tinfoil Spankard asked why x^2 and 2x aren't co-functions. Sine
and cosine are co-functions, thus the "co" in cosine. Yet again, I'm
right. LOL

>> Now... what's all that got to do with the fact that Shiny Tinfoil
>> Spankard is a backpedaling bleatfarting blither-blathering liar
>> desperately raping Google

> You know, you'd get a lot farther in this process if you'd learn a little 
> charity.

I give none to those who give none.

> I'm x-posting this to afn so that interested parties that can't 
> participate in this group can comment.

You mean Paul Derbyshire's kensi sock? I SPNAK!d that tard right out
of AUK. He ran away and melted down after being proven to be
delusional on politics, astrophysics, geometry, climate change and a
whole lot more. LOL

> -- 
> Won a Checky(tm) on 2016-04-15
>  ...for schooling a kook about derivatives.
> (Including working through a sample problem.)

Chimpy only hands out his 'awards from a kook' to people he wants a
"hawt wet 69" (Chimpy's words) with... that's why he's given one to
Paul Derbyshire... but Derbyshire had to perform two "hawt wet 69s"
(Chimpy's words) to get it... strange then, that Chimpy's been begging
for and demanding from Derbyshire another. LOL

Did I mention Chimpy's into fat dudes? If you've got pink spandex,
boxing gloves and some lube, you're *in*, Scott.

<snicker>

-- 

Kensi the moron wrote:
================================
The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so
the curvature is 4*pi
================================

Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the
Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi.

Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi
Therefore, r = 0.28209479176

Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius
of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the
units.

The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent
upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect.

Kensi the moron was corrected:
================================
Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the
Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you
backpedal, LunkHead.

You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore =
(4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is
independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original
"The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*?
================================

But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't
fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend
upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's
trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant
curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral
is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry
problems.

Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an
astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor
concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general
relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of
space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is
"science fiction" and "a howler".

In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was
mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative
Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects
of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold.

He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is
predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive
objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the
tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby
making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature,
and thus causing gravity to *repel*. It also means LunkHead believes
the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding.

Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon
the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there
was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in
the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the
4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of
magnetic attraction.

Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could
not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work,
and therefore a universe which could not exist.

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature
than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and
Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation".

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody
radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow
at 489 F.

Kensi attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming
that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of
temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron
doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain
circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien
Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron
infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve.

Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the
~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed
that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven
wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of
"blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral
emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how
spectral absorption and emission works.

Kensi is the same moron who k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer;
that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place",
that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on
a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead
cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is.

Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that
CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared
atmospheric window.

The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate
Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a
global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second
Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same
moron continues to cling to his delusions.

Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that
global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three
peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite.

Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a
lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard loser trying to pretend that he's
intelligent... and failing badly.

That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that
struggles (and fails) to understand reality.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#571143 — Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative

AS IF YOU DIDN'T JUST GOOGLE "DERIVATIVE" AND THEN POAST YER RESULTS.


lolol

OLOOL

LOL


On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 01:35:06 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler  
Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> vallor, in <news:dnf1lrFddd5U22@mid.individual.net> did thusly jump
> head first into the wood chipper again:
>
>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 07:38:38 +0200, Friendly Neighborhood
>> Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>
>>>> I'm glad you caught that, I totally missed it.  (Got just a couple of
>>>> paragraphs into his post, then ennui set in.)
>
>>> You caught Shiny Tinfoil Spankard wondering why x^2 and 2x aren't
>>> co-functions?
>
>> He never did that.
>
> Sure he did.
>
> "The derivative of x^2 is 2x. Does that make them also co-functions?"
>
>>> That's because he's a confused little kooktard.
>
>> Looks more like you are _very_ confused.
>
> Not really, you're just shifting the goal-posts and being ambiguous in
> your diversionary bleating. LOL
>
>>>> Let's see if we can generate a koan-like moment for the budding
>>>> mathematician:
>>>>
>>>>    d/dx( 2x^3 + 69 ) = 6x^2
>>> d/dx(2x^3 + 69) = (3*(2x)^2 + 0) = 6x^2 = 2*6x = 12x
>
> Correct. LOL
>
>>> Did you forget to simplify? LOL
>
>> That isn't "simplifying" you did, you took the second derivative.
>>
>> No where in my post did I try to muddy the waters with second
>> derivatives, I was talking about the basics.  Obviously.
>
> You didn't specify what your goal was.
>
>> So you get an "A" for effort, but I'm going to have to mark you down for
>> being over-enthusiastic with the process.
>
> Awww, he thinks he's a teacher... and he can't even read a graph. LOL
>
>>>>    d/dx( 4x^2 )      = 8x
>>> d/dx(4x^2) = 2*(4x) = 8x
>
> Correct.
>
>>>>    d/dx( 4x^2 + 7x + 3 ) = 8x + 7
>>> d/dx(4x^2 + 7x +3) = (2*(4x) + 7 + 0) = 8x + 7
>
> Correct.
>
>>> You should try teaching Shiny Tinfoil Spankard. LOL
>
>> I'll let you in on an open secret:
>>
>> He knows more about this than you do.
>
> Really? Is that why he denied that a sinusoid is a transform of a
> circle; denied that wave interference and superposition are the same
> thing; denied that sin^2 is a sinusoid; claimed that "within 10%
> error" equaled "10% error"; didn't know what LaTeX notation was or
> that there's a formula in that plain text LaTeX notation (he thought
> it was a script. LOL!); didn't know what the "co" in cosine means nor
> what co-functionality was nor the difference between inverse
> operations and cofunctionality; didn't know that finding the
> anti-derivative is the same as finding the integral; denied that stock
> trading requires mathematical derivatives; claimed that mathematical
> derivatives as used in stock trading are stock options; demonstrated
> that he didn't know what the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus is;
> demonstrated that he didn't know that the derivative of a constant is
> always equal to zero; claimed that no math was being done unless an
> equal sign was in there somewhere; confused a formula and an equation;
> and completely fucked up the definitions of the first, second and
> third derivatives? Amongst many other of his hilarious fuckups. LOL
>
>>>> You can't fake knowing math.
>
>>> Says the guy who fucked up above. LOL
>
>> Actually, no, it was you who over-enthusiastically took the second
>> derivative when all we were dealing with were first derivatives.
>
> Ok, so I went over your head. I'm marking you down for that. LOL
>
>>>> Prediction:  the response to this will be "jess trollin'".
>
>>> Wrong. Again. LOL
>
>> Except, see below...
>
> Still wrong. Again. LOL
>
>>>> And I hesitate to give a sensible answer regarding 2x for a specific
>>>> point x, because _that_ does use trigonometry, but not for the reasons
>>>> you think. for r = sin(theta), r is the ratio, and theta is the angle.
>>>> But let's take that example of x^2 for x = 5 (picked out of thin air)
>>>> and see what we get:
>>>> x = 5 f(x) = (5)^2 = 25 d/dx( f(x) ) = 2x; for x = 5, this is 10
>>>>
>>>> So we know a few things about that point on the curve:
>>>> It is at (x,y) = (5,25).
>>>> The slope of the point tangent to the curve at (5,25) is 10.
>>>>
>>>> What is the slope?  It is the ratio of y/x.
>>>> So the "angle of 2x" for x=5 would be solved by using the  
>>>> trigonometric
>>>> function that solves for y/x ratios -- arctan.  (Remember tangents?
>>>> This is a song about tangents.)
>
>>> But we're not talking about the slope of x^2,
>
>> Actually, we are.  In purely mathematical terms, that's what a  
>> derivative
>> is _for_.
>
> And what's the derivative of x^2? Oh, it's 2x. So yet again I'm
> correct. LOL
>
>> Let's take the case of when you were dropped on your head as a child.
>
> Fanfic. LOL
>
>> The formula for the distance covered is d = (1/2)At^2.
>>
>> In english units, acceleration of Earth's gravity is approximately 32  
>> ft/
>> sec/sec.  I'll leave off the units, and you can see how this works.
>>
>> d = -16t^2
>>
>> This is a parabola.  First derivative (as you point out elsewhere) give
>> velocity:
>>
>> s = -32t
>>
>> This is a straight line,
>
> The equation for free-fall distance (discounting air resistance and
> buoyancy effects) due to gravitational acceleration is:
> y=\frac{1}{2}(9.80665\cdot x^2)
>
> The instantaneous velocity of a falling object due solely to
> gravitational acceleration (discounting air resistance and buoyancy
> effects) that has traveled distance x is:
> y=\sqrt{2\cdot 9.80665\cdot \left(\frac{1}{2}\left(9.80665\cdot
> x^2\right)\right)}
>
> Thus (taken straight from the graph):
> Time:        Distance Fallen:     Vi:
> 1 second     4.903 m              9.807 m/sec
> 2 seconds    19.613 m             19.613 m/sec
> 3 seconds    44.13 m              29.42 m/sec
>
> Compare that to your equation.
> Time:        Distance Fallen:        Vi:
> 1 second     16 feet (4.9768 m)      32 feet/sec (9.7535 m/sec)
> 2 seconds    64 feet (19.5072 m)     64 feet/sec (19.5072 m/sec)
> 3 seconds    144 feet (43.8912 m)    96 feet/sec (29.2609 m/sec)
>
> <http://i.imgur.com/5fT3sCp.png>
>
>> but its units are in a different frame of reference. You don't plot
>> this line with the parabola and hope to see something meaningful
>
> Huh, I just did. You apparently can't. LOL
>
>> -- you use this resulting formula (the first derivative) to develop
>> the formula that gives you a line tangent to the curve for any given x.
>
>>> we're talking about the slope of its derivative, for which the only
>>> two true conditions are [0,0] and [2,4].
>
>> I'm afraid you're still confused.
>
> Says the guy who can't figure out how to read a graph. Do you not
> understand that the graph represents the equations, and can thus be
> used to figure out the same results as the equations? Are ya skooled
> yet? LOL
>
>>>> arctan(10)
>>>> 1.47112767430373459185287557176173085185530637718323
>>>>
>>>> So there's your answer in radians, Cadet Fakey.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, you want that in degrees?
>>>> 84.28940686250035748730411865176563988852083893309440
>>>>
>>>> So the curve x^2 at that point (5,25) is about 6 degrees from  
>>>> vertical,
>>>> leaning to the right...political pun not intended.
>
>>> It's just as easy to graph it.
>>> <http://i.imgur.com/x2Z9U7s.png>
>>> <http://i.imgur.com/emGGhNA.png>
>>> Gee... I got the same answers you did.
>
>> No you didn't,
>
> Yeah. I did. Same angle in radians and degrees as you got. LOL
>
>> you graphed formulas that are only orthogonally related to each other.
>
> I got the correct answers. Again. LOL
>
>> Let me show you what it looks like closer to the origin:
>> x = 3
>> f(x) = x^2
>> so for the point in question, you have (3,9)
>
> That's exactly what I got. LOL
>
> <http://i.imgur.com/sO60qV6.png>
>
>> d/dx(f(x)) = 2x
>> so the slope of the line tangent to the curve at (3,9) is 6.
>
> That's exactly what I got. LOL
>
> <http://i.imgur.com/sO60qV6.png>
>
>> But that is the slope of the line _that passes through 3,9_.  So the
>> formula for _that_ line -- the line that would make sense to graph with
>> it -- is
>>
>> [ insert here:  you know the formula for the line of a given slope
>> is y=mx+c, I hope, where "m" is the slope.  If not, then welcome to  
>> first
>> semester algebra.]
>>
>> y = 6x + c, where "c" is some constant to make the line pass through
>> (3,9).  (That is to say, the value of y when x=0).
>>
>> So solve for c:
>>
>> 9 = 6(3) +c
>> c = -9
>>
>> So the line that makes sense to plot with the parabola is:
>> y = 6x-9
>>
>> *NOW* you can start plotting:
>>    http://imgur.com/PMbfGPj
>>
>> The _line_ I plotted is tangent to the curve at (3,9).  It passes  
>> through
>> (3,9), and it's "parallel" (instantaneously) at that point.
>>
>> All the derivative gives you is the _slope_ of the line I plotted -- but
>> you still need to figure out the formula for the line, and that changes
>> from point to point.
>>
>> _That_ is how you use a derivative.  Look at the graph.  Do you see now?
>
> And that gives 80.538 degrees, or 1.40565 radians, at that point.
>
> <http://i.imgur.com/a1KIqCN.png>
>
> Gee... I was right. Again. Why can't you read a graph? Are ya skooled
> yet? LOL
>
>>> Seems I have an intuitive grasp on the mechanics and the mathematics  
>>> of it,
>
>> I'm afraid not, you just plotted a bunch of functions that were
>> orthogonally related, but not the line that would have been obvious to
>> plot, given what a derivative is _for_.
>>
>> Unless you can come up with some kind of utility to plotting the line
>> indicated by the formula that gives you the slope of a line tangent to
>> the curve at a given point, I'd have to say you're utterly at sea.
>
> Is that why I've gotten it right twice now, with even greater accuracy
> than you could manage in the second instance? LOL
>
>> (Say...are you on a bote?)
>
> Paranoid fanfic.
>
>>> whereas Shiny Tinfoil Spankard has yet to produce even a single
>>> graph *or* correct equation. LOL
>
>> But he knows how to take a derivative, and doesn't call them "co-
>> functions" (or claim that other people are using the term when they
>> clearly haven't).
>
> Shiny Tinfoil Spankard asked why x^2 and 2x aren't co-functions. Sine
> and cosine are co-functions, thus the "co" in cosine. Yet again, I'm
> right. LOL
>
>>> Now... what's all that got to do with the fact that Shiny Tinfoil
>>> Spankard is a backpedaling bleatfarting blither-blathering liar
>>> desperately raping Google
>
>> You know, you'd get a lot farther in this process if you'd learn a  
>> little
>> charity.
>
> I give none to those who give none.
>
>> I'm x-posting this to afn so that interested parties that can't
>> participate in this group can comment.
>
> You mean Paul Derbyshire's kensi sock? I SPNAK!d that tard right out
> of AUK. He ran away and melted down after being proven to be
> delusional on politics, astrophysics, geometry, climate change and a
> whole lot more. LOL
>
>> --
>> Won a Checky(tm) on 2016-04-15
>>  ...for schooling a kook about derivatives.
>> (Including working through a sample problem.)
>
> Chimpy only hands out his 'awards from a kook' to people he wants a
> "hawt wet 69" (Chimpy's words) with... that's why he's given one to
> Paul Derbyshire... but Derbyshire had to perform two "hawt wet 69s"
> (Chimpy's words) to get it... strange then, that Chimpy's been begging
> for and demanding from Derbyshire another. LOL
>
> Did I mention Chimpy's into fat dudes? If you've got pink spandex,
> boxing gloves and some lube, you're *in*, Scott.
>
> <snicker>
>


-- 
ga·ble
'gab?l/
noun
the part of a wall that encloses the end of a pitched roof.
a wall topped with a gable.
noun: gable end; plural noun: gable ends
a gable-shaped canopy over a window or door.

http://www.thisoldhouse.com/toh/photos/0,,1213138,00.html
Gable
Gabled roofs are the kind young children typically draw. They have two
sloping sides that come together at a ridge, creating end walls with a
*triangular extension*, called a gable, at the top. The house shown here
has two gable roofs and two dormers, each with gable roofs of their own.
The slant, or pitch, of the gables varies, an inconsistency that many
builders try to avoid.

LOL

-

have you heard about the lotusLoser?
he's a loser but he still keeps on tryin'...

2nd verse: (by: bender@the.future)

have you heard about the lotusLoser
beaten by the queen of pembroke each time
have you heard about the lotusLoser
he's a luser but he still keeps on cryin'...

-

LOL

well i guess if we went to:

http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/color-summarizer/

and gave it the URL to the image THAT YOU POSTED IN POST:
<617072d3bd042b9634ebeb7c28503997@dizum.com>

<http://i.imgur.com/gchDiBs.png>

I took that on my way to eat lunch. I tried to make an index card with
backward writing so the SPANKY-SPANKY! reflection would show up with
frontward writing, but apparently I can't write backward legibly, so
you gets what you gets."

it would say "definitely not green", right???

http://i.imgur.com/1CkNIDC.png

D'OH!!!!

*SPNAKITY-SPNAKITY*

-

"People didn't cause the Great Depression, Liberal ko0kTarD. Governmental  
policy did." - Fakey in MID <7880b90ad2ecebe35ba01b4557597d80%40dizum.com>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Depression
"The initial stock market crash triggered a "panic sell-off" that made the  
stock market go even lower."

so... so the "government" panicked, snickers?

funny that a bona-fide conservative horatio alger hero type would want the  
government stepping in to save the stock market.

"Current theories may be broadly classified into two main points of view  
and several heterodox points of view.

First, there are demand-driven theories, from Keynesian and institutional  
economists who argue that the depression was caused by a widespread loss  
of confidence that led to underconsumption. The demand-driven theories  
argue that the financial crisis following the 1929 crash led to a sudden  
and persistent reduction in consumption and investment spending.[1] Once  
panic and deflation set in, many people believed they could avoid further  
losses by keeping clear of the markets. Holding money therefore became  
profitable as prices dropped lower and a given amount of money bought ever  
more goods, exacerbating the drop in demand.

Second, there are the monetarists, who believe that the Great Depression  
started as an ordinary recession, but that significant policy mistakes by  
monetary authorities (especially the Federal Reserve), caused a shrinking  
of the money supply which greatly exacerbated the economic situation,  
causing a recession to descend into the Great Depression. Related to this  
explanation are those who point to debt deflation causing those who borrow  
to owe ever more in real terms."

wait?  what?  no major "third" konservative k0okTheory blaming the  
government for everything mentioned?

odd, that.  eh, lotusLoser?

-

the never-ending saga of fakey's "lotus"...
https://web.archive.org/web/20160408001051/http://i.imgur.com/e3OrQSq.png

-

"sines, sines, everywhere there's sines
blocking up the snickerTurds, breaking his mind"
http://i.imgur.com/Z4p1Z55.png

-

FNVWe attempts to rewrite physics texts in Message-ID:  
<3dcad3dd0a0d39727506717506883c26@dizum.com>

">>let's not forget that mine also had the correct applied mathematics
>> equations unlike fakey the supposed know-it-all:
>>  phase A: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x)
>> phase B: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi)
>>  voltage difference between phase A and phase B at any point x in time:
>> 120*sin(2*pi*60*x) - 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi) = 240*sin(2*pi*60*x)

Wrong, as has already been proven. What does it say below, you fecking  
*moron*?

"The _sum_ E(θ) ≡ E(a) + E(b) can be written thusly:""

it says that you don't even know how to correctly apply mathematics to  
real-world AC electricity, snickerTurds.  it says that you're in denial  
about the inversion of your AC legs.

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/alternating-current/chpt-10/single-phase-power-systems/
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/02170.png
"To mathematically calculate voltage between “hot” wires, we must subtract  
voltages, because their polarity marks show them to be opposed to each  
other:"
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/12112.png

http://www.samlexamerica.com/support/documents/WhitePaper-120240VACSingleSplitPhaseandMultiWireBranchCircuits.pdf

on page 2:

** NOTE: The phase of Hot Leg 2 (Phase B) is in the
  opposite direction - i.e., 180° apart from the phase
  of Hot Leg L1 (Phase A)

*COUGH*
SPNAK!!

-

i know a guy on the internet who will draw a triangular sine wave in ASCII  
art if you ask nicely.</GROUCHO MARX>
see: Message-ID: <4ba4a50aaaebc7fb8a348293c5cf9f13@dizum.com>

-

snickerTurds can't seem to refute the following:

- begin snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --
/*
HOW TO RUN: download arbitrary precision libraries from:

http://www.hvks.com/Numerical/arbitrary_precision.html

place those files in a directory and save this file as  
snickerSinewaveStew.cpp inside that same directory.

compiles with:

gcc -Wall -I. precisioncore.cpp snickerSinewaveStew.cpp -lstdc++

run with:

./a.out

enjoy the LULZ ;)

*/
#include <fprecision.h>
#include <iostream.h>

using namespace std;

int main(){

   //float_precision MIN=float_precision(0);
   //float_precision MAX=float_precision(0);

   float_precision STEP=float_precision(.0001);
   float_precision t=float_precision(0);    // time variable
   float_precision sum=float_precision(0);  // sum of SnickerTurd's  
ridiculous sinewave mess
   float_precision snickerPrediction=float_precision(2550.25);  //  
snickerTurd's erroneous k0oK-k'lame Sum
   float_precision PI;
   PI =_float_table(_PI,25);

   // this while loop will run forever, but snickers doesn't understand why
   while(sum < snickerPrediction){

     // fakey's Sinewave Stew(TM) see: MID:  
<db672705e57e4932eba3632562e0a941@dizum.com>
     sum = (float_precision(150) * float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(120)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(20.25) * float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(33)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(1400)* float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(150)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +(float_precision(20)*  
float_precision(sin(float_precision(5013)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(600)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(13)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)))  
+  
(float_precision(360)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(1209)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)));

     // perhaps show a few values larger than +2300 to educate teh  
snickerTurds
     if(sum>float_precision(2300)){
       cout << "t=" << t << " sum=" << sum << std::endl;
     }
     t = t+STEP;
   }
/*

Message-ID: <c8523e6d9c31e3282bbe581fa525a2a8@dizum.com>
"Oh, yeah... it's 2550.25 volts... so why does your graph not even
reach 2500 volts, given that eventually all the sinewaves will
constructively interfere (ie: *add* to each other) to *sum* to 2550.25
volts?"

Fakey, it doesn't reach 2500 volts because the summation of your sinewaves  
never reaches that.  They never reach their max values at the same time.   
That's how stupid you are.

Message-ID: <731d08dcc702b9a8a13077ffc201e91f@dizum.com>
"I most certainly *did* prove otherwise. It can't even arrive at the
correct sinewave summation voltage of 2550.25 volts"

Fakey, you only *proved* that you are too inept to graph the equations and  
notice a few things about the interactions of their frequencies when  
summed.

the next line of code is never executed, but snickers DEFINITELY can't  
figure out why it isn't and instead has a bunch of lame excuses while  
still having not produced a value for t where the sum=2550.25, as he has  
k0okily proklamed in many usenet messages that are archived FOREVER.

*/
   cout << "snickerTurds was right! the sum is " << sum << " at time t=" <<  
t <<endl;
}
- end snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --

-

Fakey irrationally demands a theme song to foam to:
"all I really want your pathetic pwned ass to do is write me a classic  
rock song as tribute to your Usenet Lord and Master..."  
<f4f9193fa7d28b760a9de681e61427e7@dizum.com>

-

Somewhere Abouts Round Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:25:03 -0500, Friendly  
Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

<snicker>

Fag. LOL
Idiot. LOL
Moron. LOL
Tranny. LOL
Libtard. LOL
Crackhead. LOL
GableTard. LOL
DildoRider. LOL
Bad Musician. LOL
Stick Figure. LOL
Terrible Liar. LOL
Sinewave Spammer. LOL
Outerfilthing Stalker. LOL
Talentless FrothMonkey. LOL
Math Challenged Halfwit. LOL
Klimate Katastrophe Kook. LOL
Defeated Tearful Spankard. LOL
Waster Of Time To Save $10. LOL
Worst Maker Of Sinewaves In The History Of Usenet. LOL

<the band strikes up a rousing version of "on top of old smokey">

on top of old snick-ers, all covered with Fag. LOL
is where my usenet lord and mas-ter
can go straight to hell*

*hell doesn't exist.  hope everybody is having a productive evening.

-

http://i.imgur.com/2tH6zVB.jpg

http://cafepress.com/kooktown

http://i.imgur.com/pnWqhSG.jpg

-

If my poasts are offensive to you, you can always block all From: headers  
containing "root@127.0.0.1", unless you are an idiot who would like to  
yammer about "morphing" and maybe try to lodge some frivolous complaints  
to my news provider, then please be sure to ignore this helpful  
information and have fun making an ass of yourself in public.  :)

if that route of silencing those horrid opinions of mine that you  
downloaded to your computer under duress doesn't work you can always try:  
http://i.imgur.com/jlsN9JX.png?2

-

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
The Gish Gallop is often used as an indirect argument from authority — as  
it appears to paint the galloper as an expert in a broad range of subjects  
or with an extensive knowledge of an individual one. Simultaneously it  
presents opponents (in spoken debates) or refuters (in written,  
Internet-based ones) as incompetent bumblers who didn't do their homework  
before the debate. Such emphasis on style over substance is the reason  
many scientists disdain public debates as a forum for disseminating  
opinions. - Page #1 from the Gospel of SnickerTurd

-

Coming soon!  To a newsgroup near you!:

$ perl fakeyBot.pl
FakeyBot>       I'm FakeyBot. What's your name so I can Google-stalk you,  
look you up on Radaris, and hurl invective and probably-illegal harrassing  
bile from behind an anonymous dizum account?  <snicker>
You>    Robert Michael Wolfe
FakeyBot>       Oh look, you're back again to polish my size 16 steel-toed  
boot with your colon and listen to me talk about bestiality and cocks,  
Robert. <snicker>
Robert> you talk about cocks a lot.
FakeyBot>       Oh, I talk about sex a lot?
Robert> gay sex, mostly...
FakeyBot>       Fag!

(just as useful as the original!)

-

snickers the wonderturd describes how he alerted lots of his kiddie pr0n  
friends to the ensuing FBI sting in message  
<b5e7da79a455d0c9227b1b50e25e7ea1@dizum.com>:
"That's easy enough to do... how do you think my crew uncovered the
largest CP ring using Tor and I2P, which we promptly turned over to
the FBI? I discovered a way to uncover the IP addresses the I2P users were  
using, and a way of tracking Eepsites back to their IP addresses, then we  
figured out that we could DDOS a Tor IP address and modify Tor headers  
while checking whether a Tor hidden service was still up, then using  
process of elimination to pinpoint the IP address hosting that hidden  
service. It's not rocket science.

_The I2P community got all up in arms when I discussed on their forum how  
I was doing it, and that it'd be a good way of cleaning up I2P so it can  
get on with being a platform to research anonymous communication... my  
distinct impression was that the "anonymity
research platform" story was just a cover story to allow pervs to
trade CP._  (NOTE: admits to participating in what he "suspected" was a  
kiddie pr0n network.)

That Silk Road 2.0 was taken offline in the ensuing FBI Operation
Onymous was just icing on the cake."

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016

 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#571204 — Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative

On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 01:50:24 -0400, \"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living
at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as
5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117 wrote:

> AS IF YOU DIDN'T JUST GOOGLE "DERIVATIVE" AND THEN POAST YER RESULTS.
> 
> 
> lolol
> 
> OLOOL
> 
> LOL


That's about the size of it.

His graph:

   http://i.imgur.com/sO60qV6.png

The graph that he apparently didn't look at:

   http://imgur.com/PMbfGPj

Apparently, he doesn't get it.

for f(3) = x^2

d/dx(x^2) = 2x
m = 2x = 2(3) = 6

So we have the slope, m.

y = mx+c
9 = 6(3) + c
c = -9

So we have the constant.

y = 6x-9

So we have the formula for the line tangent to the curve x^2 at x=3.

   http://imgur.com/PMbfGPj

Checks out.

Anything else is chinese room mathematical word salad.

-- 
 -v

> 
> 
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 01:35:06 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler
> Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
> 
>> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>>
>> vallor, in <news:dnf1lrFddd5U22@mid.individual.net> did thusly jump
>> head first into the wood chipper again:
>>
>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 07:38:38 +0200, Friendly Neighborhood Vote
>>> Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>>
>>>>> I'm glad you caught that, I totally missed it.  (Got just a couple
>>>>> of paragraphs into his post, then ennui set in.)
>>
>>>> You caught Shiny Tinfoil Spankard wondering why x^2 and 2x aren't
>>>> co-functions?
>>
>>> He never did that.
>>
>> Sure he did.
>>
>> "The derivative of x^2 is 2x. Does that make them also co-functions?"
>>
>>>> That's because he's a confused little kooktard.
>>
>>> Looks more like you are _very_ confused.
>>
>> Not really, you're just shifting the goal-posts and being ambiguous in
>> your diversionary bleating. LOL
>>
>>>>> Let's see if we can generate a koan-like moment for the budding
>>>>> mathematician:
>>>>>
>>>>>    d/dx( 2x^3 + 69 ) = 6x^2
>>>> d/dx(2x^3 + 69) = (3*(2x)^2 + 0) = 6x^2 = 2*6x = 12x
>>
>> Correct. LOL
>>
>>>> Did you forget to simplify? LOL
>>
>>> That isn't "simplifying" you did, you took the second derivative.
>>>
>>> No where in my post did I try to muddy the waters with second
>>> derivatives, I was talking about the basics.  Obviously.
>>
>> You didn't specify what your goal was.
>>
>>> So you get an "A" for effort, but I'm going to have to mark you down
>>> for being over-enthusiastic with the process.
>>
>> Awww, he thinks he's a teacher... and he can't even read a graph. LOL
>>
>>>>>    d/dx( 4x^2 )      = 8x
>>>> d/dx(4x^2) = 2*(4x) = 8x
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>>>>>    d/dx( 4x^2 + 7x + 3 ) = 8x + 7
>>>> d/dx(4x^2 + 7x +3) = (2*(4x) + 7 + 0) = 8x + 7
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>>>> You should try teaching Shiny Tinfoil Spankard. LOL
>>
>>> I'll let you in on an open secret:
>>>
>>> He knows more about this than you do.
>>
>> Really? Is that why he denied that a sinusoid is a transform of a
>> circle; denied that wave interference and superposition are the same
>> thing; denied that sin^2 is a sinusoid; claimed that "within 10% error"
>> equaled "10% error"; didn't know what LaTeX notation was or that
>> there's a formula in that plain text LaTeX notation (he thought it was
>> a script. LOL!); didn't know what the "co" in cosine means nor what
>> co-functionality was nor the difference between inverse operations and
>> cofunctionality; didn't know that finding the anti-derivative is the
>> same as finding the integral; denied that stock trading requires
>> mathematical derivatives; claimed that mathematical derivatives as used
>> in stock trading are stock options; demonstrated that he didn't know
>> what the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus is; demonstrated that he
>> didn't know that the derivative of a constant is always equal to zero;
>> claimed that no math was being done unless an equal sign was in there
>> somewhere; confused a formula and an equation;
>> and completely fucked up the definitions of the first, second and third
>> derivatives? Amongst many other of his hilarious fuckups. LOL
>>
>>>>> You can't fake knowing math.
>>
>>>> Says the guy who fucked up above. LOL
>>
>>> Actually, no, it was you who over-enthusiastically took the second
>>> derivative when all we were dealing with were first derivatives.
>>
>> Ok, so I went over your head. I'm marking you down for that. LOL
>>
>>>>> Prediction:  the response to this will be "jess trollin'".
>>
>>>> Wrong. Again. LOL
>>
>>> Except, see below...
>>
>> Still wrong. Again. LOL
>>
>>>>> And I hesitate to give a sensible answer regarding 2x for a specific
>>>>> point x, because _that_ does use trigonometry, but not for the
>>>>> reasons you think. for r = sin(theta), r is the ratio, and theta is
>>>>> the angle.
>>>>> But let's take that example of x^2 for x = 5 (picked out of thin
>>>>> air) and see what we get:
>>>>> x = 5 f(x) = (5)^2 = 25 d/dx( f(x) ) = 2x; for x = 5, this is 10
>>>>>
>>>>> So we know a few things about that point on the curve:
>>>>> It is at (x,y) = (5,25).
>>>>> The slope of the point tangent to the curve at (5,25) is 10.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the slope?  It is the ratio of y/x.
>>>>> So the "angle of 2x" for x=5 would be solved by using the
>>>>> trigonometric function that solves for y/x ratios -- arctan. 
>>>>> (Remember tangents? This is a song about tangents.)
>>
>>>> But we're not talking about the slope of x^2,
>>
>>> Actually, we are.  In purely mathematical terms, that's what a
>>> derivative is _for_.
>>
>> And what's the derivative of x^2? Oh, it's 2x. So yet again I'm
>> correct. LOL
>>
>>> Let's take the case of when you were dropped on your head as a child.
>>
>> Fanfic. LOL
>>
>>> The formula for the distance covered is d = (1/2)At^2.
>>>
>>> In english units, acceleration of Earth's gravity is approximately 32
>>> ft/
>>> sec/sec.  I'll leave off the units, and you can see how this works.
>>>
>>> d = -16t^2
>>>
>>> This is a parabola.  First derivative (as you point out elsewhere)
>>> give velocity:
>>>
>>> s = -32t
>>>
>>> This is a straight line,
>>
>> The equation for free-fall distance (discounting air resistance and
>> buoyancy effects) due to gravitational acceleration is:
>> y=\frac{1}{2}(9.80665\cdot x^2)
>>
>> The instantaneous velocity of a falling object due solely to
>> gravitational acceleration (discounting air resistance and buoyancy
>> effects) that has traveled distance x is:
>> y=\sqrt{2\cdot 9.80665\cdot \left(\frac{1}{2}\left(9.80665\cdot
>> x^2\right)\right)}
>>
>> Thus (taken straight from the graph):
>> Time:        Distance Fallen:     Vi:
>> 1 second     4.903 m              9.807 m/sec 2 seconds    19.613 m    
>>         19.613 m/sec 3 seconds    44.13 m              29.42 m/sec
>>
>> Compare that to your equation.
>> Time:        Distance Fallen:        Vi:
>> 1 second     16 feet (4.9768 m)      32 feet/sec (9.7535 m/sec)
>> 2 seconds    64 feet (19.5072 m)     64 feet/sec (19.5072 m/sec)
>> 3 seconds    144 feet (43.8912 m)    96 feet/sec (29.2609 m/sec)
>>
>> <http://i.imgur.com/5fT3sCp.png>
>>
>>> but its units are in a different frame of reference. You don't plot
>>> this line with the parabola and hope to see something meaningful
>>
>> Huh, I just did. You apparently can't. LOL
>>
>>> -- you use this resulting formula (the first derivative) to develop
>>> the formula that gives you a line tangent to the curve for any given
>>> x.
>>
>>>> we're talking about the slope of its derivative, for which the only
>>>> two true conditions are [0,0] and [2,4].
>>
>>> I'm afraid you're still confused.
>>
>> Says the guy who can't figure out how to read a graph. Do you not
>> understand that the graph represents the equations, and can thus be
>> used to figure out the same results as the equations? Are ya skooled
>> yet? LOL
>>
>>>>> arctan(10)
>>>>> 1.47112767430373459185287557176173085185530637718323
>>>>>
>>>>> So there's your answer in radians, Cadet Fakey.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, you want that in degrees?
>>>>> 84.28940686250035748730411865176563988852083893309440
>>>>>
>>>>> So the curve x^2 at that point (5,25) is about 6 degrees from
>>>>> vertical,
>>>>> leaning to the right...political pun not intended.
>>
>>>> It's just as easy to graph it.
>>>> <http://i.imgur.com/x2Z9U7s.png>
>>>> <http://i.imgur.com/emGGhNA.png>
>>>> Gee... I got the same answers you did.
>>
>>> No you didn't,
>>
>> Yeah. I did. Same angle in radians and degrees as you got. LOL
>>
>>> you graphed formulas that are only orthogonally related to each other.
>>
>> I got the correct answers. Again. LOL
>>
>>> Let me show you what it looks like closer to the origin:
>>> x = 3 f(x) = x^2 so for the point in question, you have (3,9)
>>
>> That's exactly what I got. LOL
>>
>> <http://i.imgur.com/sO60qV6.png>
>>
>>> d/dx(f(x)) = 2x so the slope of the line tangent to the curve at (3,9)
>>> is 6.
>>
>> That's exactly what I got. LOL
>>
>> <http://i.imgur.com/sO60qV6.png>
>>
>>> But that is the slope of the line _that passes through 3,9_.  So the
>>> formula for _that_ line -- the line that would make sense to graph
>>> with it -- is
>>>
>>> [ insert here:  you know the formula for the line of a given slope is
>>> y=mx+c, I hope, where "m" is the slope.  If not, then welcome to first
>>> semester algebra.]
>>>
>>> y = 6x + c, where "c" is some constant to make the line pass through
>>> (3,9).  (That is to say, the value of y when x=0).
>>>
>>> So solve for c:
>>>
>>> 9 = 6(3) +c c = -9
>>>
>>> So the line that makes sense to plot with the parabola is:
>>> y = 6x-9
>>>
>>> *NOW* you can start plotting:
>>>    http://imgur.com/PMbfGPj
>>>
>>> The _line_ I plotted is tangent to the curve at (3,9).  It passes
>>> through (3,9), and it's "parallel" (instantaneously) at that point.
>>>
>>> All the derivative gives you is the _slope_ of the line I plotted --
>>> but you still need to figure out the formula for the line, and that
>>> changes from point to point.
>>>
>>> _That_ is how you use a derivative.  Look at the graph.  Do you see
>>> now?
>>
>> And that gives 80.538 degrees, or 1.40565 radians, at that point.
>>
>> <http://i.imgur.com/a1KIqCN.png>
>>
>> Gee... I was right. Again. Why can't you read a graph? Are ya skooled
>> yet? LOL
>>
>>>> Seems I have an intuitive grasp on the mechanics and the mathematics
>>>> of it,
>>
>>> I'm afraid not, you just plotted a bunch of functions that were
>>> orthogonally related, but not the line that would have been obvious to
>>> plot, given what a derivative is _for_.
>>>
>>> Unless you can come up with some kind of utility to plotting the line
>>> indicated by the formula that gives you the slope of a line tangent to
>>> the curve at a given point, I'd have to say you're utterly at sea.
>>
>> Is that why I've gotten it right twice now, with even greater accuracy
>> than you could manage in the second instance? LOL
>>
>>> (Say...are you on a bote?)
>>
>> Paranoid fanfic.
>>
>>>> whereas Shiny Tinfoil Spankard has yet to produce even a single graph
>>>> *or* correct equation. LOL
>>
>>> But he knows how to take a derivative, and doesn't call them "co-
>>> functions" (or claim that other people are using the term when they
>>> clearly haven't).
>>
>> Shiny Tinfoil Spankard asked why x^2 and 2x aren't co-functions. Sine
>> and cosine are co-functions, thus the "co" in cosine. Yet again, I'm
>> right. LOL
>>
>>>> Now... what's all that got to do with the fact that Shiny Tinfoil
>>>> Spankard is a backpedaling bleatfarting blither-blathering liar
>>>> desperately raping Google
>>
>>> You know, you'd get a lot farther in this process if you'd learn a
>>> little charity.
>>
>> I give none to those who give none.
>>
>>> I'm x-posting this to afn so that interested parties that can't
>>> participate in this group can comment.
>>
>> You mean Paul Derbyshire's kensi sock? I SPNAK!d that tard right out of
>> AUK. He ran away and melted down after being proven to be delusional on
>> politics, astrophysics, geometry, climate change and a whole lot more.
>> LOL
>>
>>> --
>>> Won a Checky(tm) on 2016-04-15
>>>  ...for schooling a kook about derivatives.
>>> (Including working through a sample problem.)
>>
>> Chimpy only hands out his 'awards from a kook' to people he wants a
>> "hawt wet 69" (Chimpy's words) with... that's why he's given one to
>> Paul Derbyshire... but Derbyshire had to perform two "hawt wet 69s"
>> (Chimpy's words) to get it... strange then, that Chimpy's been begging
>> for and demanding from Derbyshire another. LOL
>>
>> Did I mention Chimpy's into fat dudes? If you've got pink spandex,
>> boxing gloves and some lube, you're *in*, Scott.
>>
>> <snicker>
>>





-- 
Won a Checky(tm) on 2016-04-15
 ...for schooling a kook about derivatives.
(Including working through a sample problem.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#571267 — Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

vallor (aka Scott Doty), in <news:dni1p4FhphdU1@mid.individual.net>
did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 01:50:24 -0400, Robert Michael Wolfe
> the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka DildoRider) of
> 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey),
> socked up as sucksroot@127.0.0.1 wrote:

>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 01:35:06 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood
>> Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

>>> vallor (aka Scott Doty), in <news:dnf1lrFddd5U22@mid.individual.net>
>>> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 07:38:38 +0200, Friendly Neighborhood Vote
>>>> Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>>>> I'm glad you caught that, I totally missed it.  (Got just a couple
>>>>>> of paragraphs into his post, then ennui set in.)

>>>>> You caught Shiny Tinfoil Spankard wondering why x^2 and 2x aren't
>>>>> co-functions?

>>>> He never did that.

>>> Sure he did.
>>>
>>> "The derivative of x^2 is 2x. Does that make them also co-functions?"

>>>>> That's because he's a confused little kooktard.

>>>> Looks more like you are _very_ confused.

>>> Not really, you're just shifting the goal-posts and being ambiguous in
>>> your diversionary bleating. LOL

>>>>>> Let's see if we can generate a koan-like moment for the budding
>>>>>> mathematician:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    d/dx( 2x^3 + 69 ) = 6x^2
>>>>> d/dx(2x^3 + 69) = (3*(2x)^2 + 0) = 6x^2 = 2*6x = 12x

>>> Correct. LOL

>>>>> Did you forget to simplify? LOL

>>>> That isn't "simplifying" you did, you took the second derivative.
>>>>
>>>> No where in my post did I try to muddy the waters with second
>>>> derivatives, I was talking about the basics.  Obviously.

>>> You didn't specify what your goal was.

>>>> So you get an "A" for effort, but I'm going to have to mark you down
>>>> for being over-enthusiastic with the process.

>>> Awww, he thinks he's a teacher... and he can't even read a graph. LOL

>>>>>>    d/dx( 4x^2 )      = 8x
>>>>> d/dx(4x^2) = 2*(4x) = 8x

>>> Correct.

>>>>>>    d/dx( 4x^2 + 7x + 3 ) = 8x + 7
>>>>> d/dx(4x^2 + 7x +3) = (2*(4x) + 7 + 0) = 8x + 7

>>> Correct.

>>>>> You should try teaching Shiny Tinfoil Spankard. LOL

>>>> I'll let you in on an open secret:
>>>>
>>>> He knows more about this than you do.

>>> Really? Is that why he denied that a sinusoid is a transform of a
>>> circle; denied that wave interference and superposition are the same
>>> thing; denied that sin^2 is a sinusoid; claimed that "within 10% error"
>>> equaled "10% error"; didn't know what LaTeX notation was or that
>>> there's a formula in that plain text LaTeX notation (he thought it was
>>> a script. LOL!); didn't know what the "co" in cosine means nor what
>>> co-functionality was nor the difference between inverse operations and
>>> cofunctionality; didn't know that finding the anti-derivative is the
>>> same as finding the integral; denied that stock trading requires
>>> mathematical derivatives; claimed that mathematical derivatives as used
>>> in stock trading are stock options; demonstrated that he didn't know
>>> what the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus is; demonstrated that he
>>> didn't know that the derivative of a constant is always equal to zero;
>>> claimed that no math was being done unless an equal sign was in there
>>> somewhere; confused a formula and an equation; and completely fucked up
>>> the definitions of the first, second and third derivatives? Amongst
>>> many other of his hilarious fuckups. LOL

>>>>>> You can't fake knowing math.

>>>>> Says the guy who fucked up above. LOL

>>>> Actually, no, it was you who over-enthusiastically took the second
>>>> derivative when all we were dealing with were first derivatives.

>>> Ok, so I went over your head. I'm marking you down for that. LOL

>>>>>> Prediction:  the response to this will be "jess trollin'".

>>>>> Wrong. Again. LOL

>>>> Except, see below...

>>> Still wrong. Again. LOL

>>>>>> And I hesitate to give a sensible answer regarding 2x for a specific
>>>>>> point x, because _that_ does use trigonometry, but not for the
>>>>>> reasons you think. for r = sin(theta), r is the ratio, and theta is
>>>>>> the angle.
>>>>>> But let's take that example of x^2 for x = 5 (picked out of thin
>>>>>> air) and see what we get:
>>>>>> x = 5 f(x) = (5)^2 = 25 d/dx( f(x) ) = 2x; for x = 5, this is 10
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So we know a few things about that point on the curve:
>>>>>> It is at (x,y) = (5,25).
>>>>>> The slope of the point tangent to the curve at (5,25) is 10.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the slope?  It is the ratio of y/x.
>>>>>> So the "angle of 2x" for x=5 would be solved by using the
>>>>>> trigonometric function that solves for y/x ratios -- arctan. 
>>>>>> (Remember tangents? This is a song about tangents.)

>>>>> But we're not talking about the slope of x^2,

>>>> Actually, we are.  In purely mathematical terms, that's what a
>>>> derivative is _for_.

>>> And what's the derivative of x^2? Oh, it's 2x. So yet again I'm
>>> correct. LOL

>>>> Let's take the case of when you were dropped on your head as a child.

>>> Fanfic. LOL

>>>> The formula for the distance covered is d = (1/2)At^2.
>>>>
>>>> In english units, acceleration of Earth's gravity is approximately 32
>>>> ft/sec/sec.  I'll leave off the units, and you can see how this works.
>>>>
>>>> d = -16t^2
>>>>
>>>> This is a parabola.  First derivative (as you point out elsewhere)
>>>> give velocity:
>>>>
>>>> s = -32t
>>>>
>>>> This is a straight line,

>>> The equation for free-fall distance (discounting air resistance and
>>> buoyancy effects) due to gravitational acceleration is:
>>> y=\frac{1}{2}(9.80665\cdot x^2)
>>>
>>> The instantaneous velocity of a falling object due solely to
>>> gravitational acceleration (discounting air resistance and buoyancy
>>> effects) that has traveled distance x is:
>>> y=\sqrt{2\cdot 9.80665\cdot \left(\frac{1}{2}\left(9.80665\cdot
>>> x^2\right)\right)}
>>>
>>> Thus (taken straight from the graph):
>>> Time:        Distance Fallen:     Vi:
>>> 1 second     4.903 m              9.807 m/sec 2 seconds    19.613 m    
>>>         19.613 m/sec 3 seconds    44.13 m              29.42 m/sec
>>>
>>> Compare that to your equation.
>>> Time:        Distance Fallen:        Vi:
>>> 1 second     16 feet (4.9768 m)      32 feet/sec (9.7535 m/sec)
>>> 2 seconds    64 feet (19.5072 m)     64 feet/sec (19.5072 m/sec)
>>> 3 seconds    144 feet (43.8912 m)    96 feet/sec (29.2609 m/sec)
>>>
>>> <http://i.imgur.com/5fT3sCp.png>

>>>> but its units are in a different frame of reference. You don't plot
>>>> this line with the parabola and hope to see something meaningful

>>> Huh, I just did. You apparently can't. LOL

>>>> -- you use this resulting formula (the first derivative) to develop
>>>> the formula that gives you a line tangent to the curve for any given
>>>> x.

>>>>> we're talking about the slope of its derivative, for which the only
>>>>> two true conditions are [0,0] and [2,4].

>>>> I'm afraid you're still confused.

>>> Says the guy who can't figure out how to read a graph. Do you not
>>> understand that the graph represents the equations, and can thus be
>>> used to figure out the same results as the equations? Are ya skooled
>>> yet? LOL

>>>>>> arctan(10)
>>>>>> 1.47112767430373459185287557176173085185530637718323
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So there's your answer in radians, Cadet Fakey.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, you want that in degrees?
>>>>>> 84.28940686250035748730411865176563988852083893309440
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So the curve x^2 at that point (5,25) is about 6 degrees from
>>>>>> vertical,
>>>>>> leaning to the right...political pun not intended.

>>>>> It's just as easy to graph it.
>>>>> <http://i.imgur.com/x2Z9U7s.png>
>>>>> <http://i.imgur.com/emGGhNA.png>
>>>>> Gee... I got the same answers you did.

>>>> No you didn't,

>>> Yeah. I did. Same angle in radians and degrees as you got. LOL

>>>> you graphed formulas that are only orthogonally related to each other.

>>> I got the correct answers. Again. LOL

>>>> Let me show you what it looks like closer to the origin:
>>>> x = 3 f(x) = x^2 so for the point in question, you have (3,9)

>>> That's exactly what I got. LOL
>>>
>>> <http://i.imgur.com/sO60qV6.png>

>>>> d/dx(f(x)) = 2x so the slope of the line tangent to the curve at (3,9)
>>>> is 6.

>>> That's exactly what I got. LOL
>>>
>>> <http://i.imgur.com/sO60qV6.png>

>>>> But that is the slope of the line _that passes through 3,9_.  So the
>>>> formula for _that_ line -- the line that would make sense to graph
>>>> with it -- is
>>>>
>>>> [ insert here:  you know the formula for the line of a given slope is
>>>> y=mx+c, I hope, where "m" is the slope.  If not, then welcome to first
>>>> semester algebra.]
>>>>
>>>> y = 6x + c, where "c" is some constant to make the line pass through
>>>> (3,9).  (That is to say, the value of y when x=0).
>>>>
>>>> So solve for c:
>>>>
>>>> 9 = 6(3) +c c = -9
>>>>
>>>> So the line that makes sense to plot with the parabola is:
>>>> y = 6x-9
>>>>
>>>> *NOW* you can start plotting:
>>>>    http://imgur.com/PMbfGPj
>>>>
>>>> The _line_ I plotted is tangent to the curve at (3,9).  It passes
>>>> through (3,9), and it's "parallel" (instantaneously) at that point.
>>>>
>>>> All the derivative gives you is the _slope_ of the line I plotted --
>>>> but you still need to figure out the formula for the line, and that
>>>> changes from point to point.
>>>>
>>>> _That_ is how you use a derivative.  Look at the graph.  Do you see
>>>> now?

>>> And that gives 80.538 degrees, or 1.40565 radians, at that point.
>>>
>>> <http://i.imgur.com/a1KIqCN.png>
>>>
>>> Gee... I was right. Again. Why can't you read a graph? Are ya skooled
>>> yet? LOL

>>>>> Seems I have an intuitive grasp on the mechanics and the mathematics
>>>>> of it,

>>>> I'm afraid not, you just plotted a bunch of functions that were
>>>> orthogonally related, but not the line that would have been obvious to
>>>> plot, given what a derivative is _for_.
>>>>
>>>> Unless you can come up with some kind of utility to plotting the line
>>>> indicated by the formula that gives you the slope of a line tangent to
>>>> the curve at a given point, I'd have to say you're utterly at sea.

>>> Is that why I've gotten it right twice now, with even greater accuracy
>>> than you could manage in the second instance? LOL

>> AS IF YOU DIDN'T JUST GOOGLE "DERIVATIVE" AND THEN POAST YER RESULTS.
>> 
>> lolol
>> 
>> OLOOL
>> 
>> LOL

You're awfully melty, DildoRider... is it because I've demonstrated
that I'm right three times now? Despite Scott claiming otherwise, I've
gotten the same results he did... apparently he doesn't understand
that the graph represents the equations, thus the same information can
be gleaned from the graph as can be from the equations. But he
apparently can't read a graph. LOL

> That's about the size of it.
> 
> His graph:
> 
>    http://i.imgur.com/sO60qV6.png

Yes, my graph, in which I got the same results as you. LOL

Don't forget the second one, in which I got the correct angle in
degrees:

<http://i.imgur.com/a1KIqCN.png>

> The graph that he apparently didn't look at:
> 
>    http://imgur.com/PMbfGPj
> 
> Apparently, he doesn't get it.
> 
> for f(3) = x^2
> 
> d/dx(x^2) = 2x
> m = 2x = 2(3) = 6
> 
> So we have the slope, m.
> 
> y = mx+c
> 9 = 6(3) + c
> c = -9
> 
> So we have the constant.
> 
> y = 6x-9
> 
> So we have the formula for the line tangent to the curve x^2 at x=3.
> 
>    http://imgur.com/PMbfGPj
> 
> Checks out.

As does mine. In fact, the second one I did was even more accurate
than your equations. Are ya skooled yet? LOL

> Anything else is chinese room mathematical word salad.

Is that why I'm getting the correct answers, Scott? Or is it just a
case of you being unable to read a graph? LOL

-- 

Shiny Tinfoil Spankard (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:
=====================================
MID: <13d33d0638e0ec690b63393d0710f658@dizum.com>
MID: <80d61a6928a9e7df316c519affcf3838@dizum.com>
The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier
Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create
*sinusoids*).

MID: <ff81cb60204ffbd777cd15a6261cfb67@dizum.com>
That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms.

That superposition is the same as wave interference.

That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves.

That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things.

That RMS isn't a DC voltage.

That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207
volts RMS L-L.

That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1.

The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave.

That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical
engineering, physics and control systems engineering.

What a positive or negative vector is.

That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per
Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero.

That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic".

That "gaffe" is not spelled "gaff".

That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2
positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron.

That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* effective
nuclear charge.

What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.

That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples.

That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the
atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law to within 1.337842%
margin of error *worst* *case* at 70 F.

That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of
a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does
*not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames.

That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes
into account molar volume.

That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error".

That water can be plasmized.

That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge.

MID: <382fa822c6dbca9a6f88cab5a104bf62@dizum.com>
That formulas *are* math.

How to use a graphing calculator.

MID: <8e4e21f5748d85599f700ee8ff174611@dizum.com>
What LaTeX notation is.

MID: <8e4e21f5748d85599f700ee8ff174611@dizum.com>
That LaTeX notation *is* "plain text", not a script.

MID: <c1c02875af2c6615bd30ab20416b75b5@dizum.com>
That a formula in LaTeX notation is still a formula.

That scientific notation and LaTeX notation are not the same.
DUURRRHH! GoogleTard. LOL

That LaTeX notation can be copy-n-pasted into a LaTeX compatible
program to view the formula.

That image size != image resolution.

That inverse operations are not inverse functions.

That RMS voltage is a mathematical approximation.

That there are _three_ methods of mathematically approximating RMS
voltage.

The difference between Euler's Theorems and Euler's Formulas.

That x^2 and 2x are not co-functions.

And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph.
=====================================

Shiny Tinfoil Spankard the Mathematical Moron maunders and mewls:
=====================================
"All you've shown us is graphs of formulas. No equal signs, no maths
done." - Shiny Tinfoil Brain demonstrates his Mathematical Moronism.
=====================================

SPNAK!

<snicker>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#571275 — Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 07:29:49 +0200, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler
Emeritus wrote:

> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
> 
> vallor (aka Scott Doty), in <news:dni1p4FhphdU1@mid.individual.net> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> 
>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 01:50:24 -0400, Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh
>> Pied Piper Of Penis (aka DildoRider) of 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh,
>> PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey),
>> socked up as sucksroot@127.0.0.1 wrote:
> 
>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 01:35:06 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood Vote
>>> Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
> 
>>>> vallor (aka Scott Doty), in <news:dnf1lrFddd5U22@mid.individual.net>
>>>> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> 
>>>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 07:38:38 +0200, Friendly Neighborhood Vote
>>>>> Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> 
>>>>>>> I'm glad you caught that, I totally missed it.  (Got just a couple
>>>>>>> of paragraphs into his post, then ennui set in.)
> 
>>>>>> You caught Shiny Tinfoil Spankard wondering why x^2 and 2x aren't
>>>>>> co-functions?
> 
>>>>> He never did that.
> 
>>>> Sure he did.
>>>>
>>>> "The derivative of x^2 is 2x. Does that make them also co-functions?"
> 
>>>>>> That's because he's a confused little kooktard.
> 
>>>>> Looks more like you are _very_ confused.
> 
>>>> Not really, you're just shifting the goal-posts and being ambiguous
>>>> in your diversionary bleating. LOL
> 
>>>>>>> Let's see if we can generate a koan-like moment for the budding
>>>>>>> mathematician:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    d/dx( 2x^3 + 69 ) = 6x^2
>>>>>> d/dx(2x^3 + 69) = (3*(2x)^2 + 0) = 6x^2 = 2*6x = 12x
> 
>>>> Correct. LOL
> 
>>>>>> Did you forget to simplify? LOL
> 
>>>>> That isn't "simplifying" you did, you took the second derivative.
>>>>>
>>>>> No where in my post did I try to muddy the waters with second
>>>>> derivatives, I was talking about the basics.  Obviously.
> 
>>>> You didn't specify what your goal was.
> 
>>>>> So you get an "A" for effort, but I'm going to have to mark you down
>>>>> for being over-enthusiastic with the process.
> 
>>>> Awww, he thinks he's a teacher... and he can't even read a graph. LOL
> 
>>>>>>>    d/dx( 4x^2 )      = 8x
>>>>>> d/dx(4x^2) = 2*(4x) = 8x
> 
>>>> Correct.
> 
>>>>>>>    d/dx( 4x^2 + 7x + 3 ) = 8x + 7
>>>>>> d/dx(4x^2 + 7x +3) = (2*(4x) + 7 + 0) = 8x + 7
> 
>>>> Correct.
> 
>>>>>> You should try teaching Shiny Tinfoil Spankard. LOL
> 
>>>>> I'll let you in on an open secret:
>>>>>
>>>>> He knows more about this than you do.
> 
>>>> Really? Is that why he denied that a sinusoid is a transform of a
>>>> circle; denied that wave interference and superposition are the same
>>>> thing; denied that sin^2 is a sinusoid; claimed that "within 10%
>>>> error"
>>>> equaled "10% error"; didn't know what LaTeX notation was or that
>>>> there's a formula in that plain text LaTeX notation (he thought it
>>>> was a script. LOL!); didn't know what the "co" in cosine means nor
>>>> what co-functionality was nor the difference between inverse
>>>> operations and cofunctionality; didn't know that finding the
>>>> anti-derivative is the same as finding the integral; denied that
>>>> stock trading requires mathematical derivatives; claimed that
>>>> mathematical derivatives as used in stock trading are stock options;
>>>> demonstrated that he didn't know what the Fundamental Theorem of
>>>> Calculus is; demonstrated that he didn't know that the derivative of
>>>> a constant is always equal to zero; claimed that no math was being
>>>> done unless an equal sign was in there somewhere; confused a formula
>>>> and an equation; and completely fucked up the definitions of the
>>>> first, second and third derivatives? Amongst many other of his
>>>> hilarious fuckups. LOL
> 
>>>>>>> You can't fake knowing math.
> 
>>>>>> Says the guy who fucked up above. LOL
> 
>>>>> Actually, no, it was you who over-enthusiastically took the second
>>>>> derivative when all we were dealing with were first derivatives.
> 
>>>> Ok, so I went over your head. I'm marking you down for that. LOL
> 
>>>>>>> Prediction:  the response to this will be "jess trollin'".
> 
>>>>>> Wrong. Again. LOL
> 
>>>>> Except, see below...
> 
>>>> Still wrong. Again. LOL
> 
>>>>>>> And I hesitate to give a sensible answer regarding 2x for a
>>>>>>> specific point x, because _that_ does use trigonometry, but not
>>>>>>> for the reasons you think. for r = sin(theta), r is the ratio, and
>>>>>>> theta is the angle.
>>>>>>> But let's take that example of x^2 for x = 5 (picked out of thin
>>>>>>> air) and see what we get:
>>>>>>> x = 5 f(x) = (5)^2 = 25 d/dx( f(x) ) = 2x; for x = 5, this is 10
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So we know a few things about that point on the curve:
>>>>>>> It is at (x,y) = (5,25).
>>>>>>> The slope of the point tangent to the curve at (5,25) is 10.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is the slope?  It is the ratio of y/x.
>>>>>>> So the "angle of 2x" for x=5 would be solved by using the
>>>>>>> trigonometric function that solves for y/x ratios -- arctan.
>>>>>>> (Remember tangents? This is a song about tangents.)
> 
>>>>>> But we're not talking about the slope of x^2,
> 
>>>>> Actually, we are.  In purely mathematical terms, that's what a
>>>>> derivative is _for_.
> 
>>>> And what's the derivative of x^2? Oh, it's 2x. So yet again I'm
>>>> correct. LOL
> 
>>>>> Let's take the case of when you were dropped on your head as a
>>>>> child.
> 
>>>> Fanfic. LOL
> 
>>>>> The formula for the distance covered is d = (1/2)At^2.
>>>>>
>>>>> In english units, acceleration of Earth's gravity is approximately
>>>>> 32 ft/sec/sec.  I'll leave off the units, and you can see how this
>>>>> works.
>>>>>
>>>>> d = -16t^2
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a parabola.  First derivative (as you point out elsewhere)
>>>>> give velocity:
>>>>>
>>>>> s = -32t
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a straight line,
> 
>>>> The equation for free-fall distance (discounting air resistance and
>>>> buoyancy effects) due to gravitational acceleration is:
>>>> y=\frac{1}{2}(9.80665\cdot x^2)
>>>>
>>>> The instantaneous velocity of a falling object due solely to
>>>> gravitational acceleration (discounting air resistance and buoyancy
>>>> effects) that has traveled distance x is:
>>>> y=\sqrt{2\cdot 9.80665\cdot \left(\frac{1}{2}\left(9.80665\cdot
>>>> x^2\right)\right)}
>>>>
>>>> Thus (taken straight from the graph):
>>>> Time:        Distance Fallen:     Vi:
>>>> 1 second     4.903 m              9.807 m/sec 2 seconds    19.613 m
>>>>         19.613 m/sec 3 seconds    44.13 m              29.42 m/sec
>>>>
>>>> Compare that to your equation.
>>>> Time:        Distance Fallen:        Vi:
>>>> 1 second     16 feet (4.9768 m)      32 feet/sec (9.7535 m/sec)
>>>> 2 seconds    64 feet (19.5072 m)     64 feet/sec (19.5072 m/sec)
>>>> 3 seconds    144 feet (43.8912 m)    96 feet/sec (29.2609 m/sec)
>>>>
>>>> <http://i.imgur.com/5fT3sCp.png>
> 
>>>>> but its units are in a different frame of reference. You don't plot
>>>>> this line with the parabola and hope to see something meaningful
> 
>>>> Huh, I just did. You apparently can't. LOL
> 
>>>>> -- you use this resulting formula (the first derivative) to develop
>>>>> the formula that gives you a line tangent to the curve for any given
>>>>> x.
> 
>>>>>> we're talking about the slope of its derivative, for which the only
>>>>>> two true conditions are [0,0] and [2,4].
> 
>>>>> I'm afraid you're still confused.
> 
>>>> Says the guy who can't figure out how to read a graph. Do you not
>>>> understand that the graph represents the equations, and can thus be
>>>> used to figure out the same results as the equations? Are ya skooled
>>>> yet? LOL
> 
>>>>>>> arctan(10)
>>>>>>> 1.47112767430373459185287557176173085185530637718323
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So there's your answer in radians, Cadet Fakey.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, you want that in degrees?
>>>>>>> 84.28940686250035748730411865176563988852083893309440
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So the curve x^2 at that point (5,25) is about 6 degrees from
>>>>>>> vertical,
>>>>>>> leaning to the right...political pun not intended.
> 
>>>>>> It's just as easy to graph it.
>>>>>> <http://i.imgur.com/x2Z9U7s.png>
>>>>>> <http://i.imgur.com/emGGhNA.png>
>>>>>> Gee... I got the same answers you did.
> 
>>>>> No you didn't,
> 
>>>> Yeah. I did. Same angle in radians and degrees as you got. LOL
> 
>>>>> you graphed formulas that are only orthogonally related to each
>>>>> other.
> 
>>>> I got the correct answers. Again. LOL
> 
>>>>> Let me show you what it looks like closer to the origin:
>>>>> x = 3 f(x) = x^2 so for the point in question, you have (3,9)
> 
>>>> That's exactly what I got. LOL
>>>>
>>>> <http://i.imgur.com/sO60qV6.png>
> 
>>>>> d/dx(f(x)) = 2x so the slope of the line tangent to the curve at
>>>>> (3,9)
>>>>> is 6.
> 
>>>> That's exactly what I got. LOL
>>>>
>>>> <http://i.imgur.com/sO60qV6.png>
> 
>>>>> But that is the slope of the line _that passes through 3,9_.  So the
>>>>> formula for _that_ line -- the line that would make sense to graph
>>>>> with it -- is
>>>>>
>>>>> [ insert here:  you know the formula for the line of a given slope
>>>>> is y=mx+c, I hope, where "m" is the slope.  If not, then welcome to
>>>>> first semester algebra.]
>>>>>
>>>>> y = 6x + c, where "c" is some constant to make the line pass through
>>>>> (3,9).  (That is to say, the value of y when x=0).
>>>>>
>>>>> So solve for c:
>>>>>
>>>>> 9 = 6(3) +c c = -9
>>>>>
>>>>> So the line that makes sense to plot with the parabola is:
>>>>> y = 6x-9
>>>>>
>>>>> *NOW* you can start plotting:
>>>>>    http://imgur.com/PMbfGPj
>>>>>
>>>>> The _line_ I plotted is tangent to the curve at (3,9).  It passes
>>>>> through (3,9), and it's "parallel" (instantaneously) at that point.
>>>>>
>>>>> All the derivative gives you is the _slope_ of the line I plotted --
>>>>> but you still need to figure out the formula for the line, and that
>>>>> changes from point to point.
>>>>>
>>>>> _That_ is how you use a derivative.  Look at the graph.  Do you see
>>>>> now?
> 
>>>> And that gives 80.538 degrees, or 1.40565 radians, at that point.
>>>>
>>>> <http://i.imgur.com/a1KIqCN.png>
>>>>
>>>> Gee... I was right. Again. Why can't you read a graph? Are ya skooled
>>>> yet? LOL
> 
>>>>>> Seems I have an intuitive grasp on the mechanics and the
>>>>>> mathematics of it,
> 
>>>>> I'm afraid not, you just plotted a bunch of functions that were
>>>>> orthogonally related, but not the line that would have been obvious
>>>>> to plot, given what a derivative is _for_.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unless you can come up with some kind of utility to plotting the
>>>>> line indicated by the formula that gives you the slope of a line
>>>>> tangent to the curve at a given point, I'd have to say you're
>>>>> utterly at sea.
> 
>>>> Is that why I've gotten it right twice now, with even greater
>>>> accuracy than you could manage in the second instance? LOL
> 
>>> AS IF YOU DIDN'T JUST GOOGLE "DERIVATIVE" AND THEN POAST YER RESULTS.
>>> 
>>> lolol
>>> 
>>> OLOOL
>>> 
>>> LOL
> 
> You're awfully melty, DildoRider... is it because I've demonstrated that
> I'm right three times now? Despite Scott claiming otherwise, I've gotten
> the same results he did... apparently he doesn't understand that the
> graph represents the equations, thus the same information can be gleaned
> from the graph as can be from the equations. But he apparently can't
> read a graph. LOL
> 
>> That's about the size of it.
>> 
>> His graph:
>> 
>>    http://i.imgur.com/sO60qV6.png
> 
> Yes, my graph, in which I got the same results as you. LOL
> 
> Don't forget the second one, in which I got the correct angle in
> degrees:
> 
> <http://i.imgur.com/a1KIqCN.png>
> 
>> The graph that he apparently didn't look at:
>> 
>>    http://imgur.com/PMbfGPj
>> 
>> Apparently, he doesn't get it.
>> 
>> for f(3) = x^2
>> 
>> d/dx(x^2) = 2x m = 2x = 2(3) = 6
>> 
>> So we have the slope, m.
>> 
>> y = mx+c 9 = 6(3) + c c = -9
>> 
>> So we have the constant.
>> 
>> y = 6x-9
>> 
>> So we have the formula for the line tangent to the curve x^2 at x=3.
>> 
>>    http://imgur.com/PMbfGPj
>> 
>> Checks out.
> 
> As does mine. In fact, the second one I did was even more accurate than
> your equations. Are ya skooled yet? LOL
> 
>> Anything else is chinese room mathematical word salad.
> 
> Is that why I'm getting the correct answers, Scott? Or is it just a case
> of you being unable to read a graph? LOL

You can declare "victolly" all you like, but you haven't displayed any 
knowledge of the process.  You've posted some graphs that are only 
orthogonally related to the answer.  This is spaghetti against the wall.

If not, then please show me where you posted the equation for the line 
tangent to the curve at any point "x".  I've used x=3 for my example 
because it's easy to graph, but you can use any other point.

All you've done is plot slopes, which is not the entire answer.  Put them 
to use.

If you plot the curve and the line tangent to the curve, it should look 
like this:

   http://imgur.com/PMbfGPj

I'm going to assume you understand the graph, because it's dead-simple.

And I have no doubt that you can do this, if you simply apply yourself to 
picking a point on the curve, and showing the equation for the line 
tangent to the curve at that point.  I've shown you how to do this -- and 
if I can do it, then you can too.

-- 
Won a Checky(tm) on 2016-04-15
 ...for schooling a kook about derivatives.
(Including working through a sample problem.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#571276 — Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative

In article <dnjcslFroq2U1@mid.individual.net>, vallor@cultnix.org 
says...


> I'm going to assume you understand the graph, because it's dead-simple.


LOL!  Remember, this is Fakeytard you're talking to...

<mocking snicker>

-- 
Rick Sabian's Allstar Canadian Assworm Zydeco Band

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#571526 — Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

vallor (aka Scott Doty), in <news:dnjcslFroq2U1@mid.individual.net>
did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 07:29:49 +0200, Friendly Neighborhood
> Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>>>>>> And I hesitate to give a sensible answer regarding 2x for a
>>>>>>>> specific point x, because _that_ does use trigonometry, but not
>>>>>>>> for the reasons you think. for r = sin(theta), r is the ratio, and
>>>>>>>> theta is the angle.
>>>>>>>> But let's take that example of x^2 for x = 5 (picked out of thin
>>>>>>>> air) and see what we get:
>>>>>>>> x = 5 f(x) = (5)^2 = 25 d/dx( f(x) ) = 2x; for x = 5, this is 10
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So we know a few things about that point on the curve:
>>>>>>>> It is at (x,y) = (5,25).
>>>>>>>> The slope of the point tangent to the curve at (5,25) is 10.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What is the slope?  It is the ratio of y/x.
>>>>>>>> So the "angle of 2x" for x=5 would be solved by using the
>>>>>>>> trigonometric function that solves for y/x ratios -- arctan.
>>>>>>>> (Remember tangents? This is a song about tangents.)

>>>>>>> But we're not talking about the slope of x^2,

>>>>>> Actually, we are.  In purely mathematical terms, that's what a
>>>>>> derivative is _for_.

>>>>> And what's the derivative of x^2? Oh, it's 2x. So yet again I'm
>>>>> correct. LOL

>>>>>> Let's take the case of when you were dropped on your head as a
>>>>>> child.

>>>>> Fanfic. LOL

>>>>>> The formula for the distance covered is d = (1/2)At^2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In english units, acceleration of Earth's gravity is approximately
>>>>>> 32 ft/sec/sec.  I'll leave off the units, and you can see how this
>>>>>> works.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> d = -16t^2
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a parabola.  First derivative (as you point out elsewhere)
>>>>>> give velocity:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> s = -32t
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a straight line,

>>>>> The equation for free-fall distance (discounting air resistance and
>>>>> buoyancy effects) due to gravitational acceleration is:
>>>>> y=\frac{1}{2}(9.80665\cdot x^2)
>>>>>
>>>>> The instantaneous velocity of a falling object due solely to
>>>>> gravitational acceleration (discounting air resistance and buoyancy
>>>>> effects) that has traveled distance x is:
>>>>> y=\sqrt{2\cdot 9.80665\cdot \left(\frac{1}{2}\left(9.80665\cdot
>>>>> x^2\right)\right)}
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus (taken straight from the graph):
>>>>> Time:        Distance Fallen:     Vi:
>>>>> 1 second     4.903 m              9.807 m/sec 2 seconds    19.613 m
>>>>>         19.613 m/sec 3 seconds    44.13 m              29.42 m/sec
>>>>>
>>>>> Compare that to your equation.
>>>>> Time:        Distance Fallen:        Vi:
>>>>> 1 second     16 feet (4.9768 m)      32 feet/sec (9.7535 m/sec)
>>>>> 2 seconds    64 feet (19.5072 m)     64 feet/sec (19.5072 m/sec)
>>>>> 3 seconds    144 feet (43.8912 m)    96 feet/sec (29.2609 m/sec)
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://i.imgur.com/5fT3sCp.png>

>>>>>> but its units are in a different frame of reference. You don't plot
>>>>>> this line with the parabola and hope to see something meaningful

>>>>> Huh, I just did. You apparently can't. LOL

>>>>>> -- you use this resulting formula (the first derivative) to develop
>>>>>> the formula that gives you a line tangent to the curve for any given
>>>>>> x.

>>>>>>> we're talking about the slope of its derivative, for which the only
>>>>>>> two true conditions are [0,0] and [2,4].

>>>>>> I'm afraid you're still confused.

>>>>> Says the guy who can't figure out how to read a graph. Do you not
>>>>> understand that the graph represents the equations, and can thus be
>>>>> used to figure out the same results as the equations? Are ya skooled
>>>>> yet? LOL

>>>>>>>> arctan(10)
>>>>>>>> 1.47112767430373459185287557176173085185530637718323
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So there's your answer in radians, Cadet Fakey.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh, you want that in degrees?
>>>>>>>> 84.28940686250035748730411865176563988852083893309440
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So the curve x^2 at that point (5,25) is about 6 degrees from
>>>>>>>> vertical,
>>>>>>>> leaning to the right...political pun not intended.

>>>>>>> It's just as easy to graph it.
>>>>>>> <http://i.imgur.com/x2Z9U7s.png>
>>>>>>> <http://i.imgur.com/emGGhNA.png>
>>>>>>> Gee... I got the same answers you did.

>>>>>> No you didn't,

>>>>> Yeah. I did. Same angle in radians and degrees as you got. LOL

>>>>>> you graphed formulas that are only orthogonally related to each
>>>>>> other.

>>>>> I got the correct answers. Again. LOL

>>>>>> Let me show you what it looks like closer to the origin:
>>>>>> x = 3 f(x) = x^2 so for the point in question, you have (3,9)

>>>>> That's exactly what I got. LOL
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://i.imgur.com/sO60qV6.png>

>>>>>> d/dx(f(x)) = 2x so the slope of the line tangent to the curve at
>>>>>> (3,9)
>>>>>> is 6.

>>>>> That's exactly what I got. LOL
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://i.imgur.com/sO60qV6.png>

>>>>>> But that is the slope of the line _that passes through 3,9_.  So the
>>>>>> formula for _that_ line -- the line that would make sense to graph
>>>>>> with it -- is
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ insert here:  you know the formula for the line of a given slope
>>>>>> is y=mx+c, I hope, where "m" is the slope.  If not, then welcome to
>>>>>> first semester algebra.]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> y = 6x + c, where "c" is some constant to make the line pass through
>>>>>> (3,9).  (That is to say, the value of y when x=0).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So solve for c:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 9 = 6(3) +c c = -9
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So the line that makes sense to plot with the parabola is:
>>>>>> y = 6x-9
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *NOW* you can start plotting:
>>>>>>    http://imgur.com/PMbfGPj
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The _line_ I plotted is tangent to the curve at (3,9).  It passes
>>>>>> through (3,9), and it's "parallel" (instantaneously) at that point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All the derivative gives you is the _slope_ of the line I plotted --
>>>>>> but you still need to figure out the formula for the line, and that
>>>>>> changes from point to point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _That_ is how you use a derivative.  Look at the graph.  Do you see
>>>>>> now?

>>>>> And that gives 80.538 degrees, or 1.40565 radians, at that point.
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://i.imgur.com/a1KIqCN.png>
>>>>>
>>>>> Gee... I was right. Again. Why can't you read a graph? Are ya skooled
>>>>> yet? LOL

>>>>>>> Seems I have an intuitive grasp on the mechanics and the
>>>>>>> mathematics of it,

>>>>>> I'm afraid not, you just plotted a bunch of functions that were
>>>>>> orthogonally related, but not the line that would have been obvious
>>>>>> to plot, given what a derivative is _for_.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless you can come up with some kind of utility to plotting the
>>>>>> line indicated by the formula that gives you the slope of a line
>>>>>> tangent to the curve at a given point, I'd have to say you're
>>>>>> utterly at sea.

>>>>> Is that why I've gotten it right twice now, with even greater
>>>>> accuracy than you could manage in the second instance? LOL

>>>> AS IF YOU DIDN'T JUST GOOGLE "DERIVATIVE" AND THEN POAST YER RESULTS.
>>>> 
>>>> lolol
>>>> 
>>>> OLOOL
>>>> 
>>>> LOL

>> You're awfully melty, DildoRider... is it because I've demonstrated that
>> I'm right three times now? Despite Scott claiming otherwise, I've gotten
>> the same results he did... apparently he doesn't understand that the
>> graph represents the equations, thus the same information can be gleaned
>> from the graph as can be from the equations. But he apparently can't
>> read a graph. LOL

>>> That's about the size of it.
>>> 
>>> His graph:
>>> 
>>>    http://i.imgur.com/sO60qV6.png

>> Yes, my graph, in which I got the same results as you. LOL
>> 
>> Don't forget the second one, in which I got the correct angle in
>> degrees:
>> 
>> <http://i.imgur.com/a1KIqCN.png>

>>> The graph that he apparently didn't look at:
>>> 
>>>    http://imgur.com/PMbfGPj
>>> 
>>> Apparently, he doesn't get it.
>>> 
>>> for f(3) = x^2
>>> 
>>> d/dx(x^2) = 2x m = 2x = 2(3) = 6
>>> 
>>> So we have the slope, m.
>>> 
>>> y = mx+c 9 = 6(3) + c c = -9
>>> 
>>> So we have the constant.
>>> 
>>> y = 6x-9
>>> 
>>> So we have the formula for the line tangent to the curve x^2 at x=3.
>>> 
>>>    http://imgur.com/PMbfGPj
>>> 
>>> Checks out.

>> As does mine. In fact, the second one I did was even more accurate than
>> your equations. Are ya skooled yet? LOL

>>> Anything else is chinese room mathematical word salad.

>> Is that why I'm getting the correct answers, Scott? Or is it just a case
>> of you being unable to read a graph? LOL

> You can declare "victolly" all you like, but you haven't displayed any 
> knowledge of the process.

Except for using the correct equations, graphing them correctly, *and*
deriving the correct information from the graphs, you mean... that
last bit not even you could do. LOL

> You've posted some graphs that are only orthogonally related to the answer.

The graphs represent the equations. Thus the graphs can be used to
arrive at the same answers as those equations. What about that don't
you understand? LOL

> This is spaghetti against the wall.

So you claim... except I've gotten the correct answers three times
now... the second time with even greater accuracy than you could
manage. LOL

> If not, then please show me where you posted the equation for the line 
> tangent to the curve at any point "x".  I've used x=3 for my example 
> because it's easy to graph, but you can use any other point.

The equation is inherent in the graph, Scott. You have to redo the
equation each time you want to find the slope of a different point on
the curve. All I have to do is look at the graph. LOL

> All you've done is plot slopes, which is not the entire answer.  Put them 
> to use.
> 
> If you plot the curve and the line tangent to the curve, it should look 
> like this:
> 
>    http://imgur.com/PMbfGPj
> 
> I'm going to assume you understand the graph, because it's dead-simple.
> 
> And I have no doubt that you can do this, if you simply apply yourself to 
> picking a point on the curve, and showing the equation for the line 
> tangent to the curve at that point.  I've shown you how to do this -- and 
> if I can do it, then you can too.

I not only did what you did, I properly graphed it such that I don't
have to redo the equation each time I want to find the slope of a
different point on the curve, like you do. Now, what fundamental
misunderstandings are you harboring that prevent you from reading and
understanding a simple graph, Scott?

http://i.imgur.com/sO60qV6.png
<http://i.imgur.com/a1KIqCN.png>

Same answers as you're getting, without having to redo the equation
each time... all I have to do is read a graph... and that is sort of
the reason for a graph, after all, to summarize data to make it easier
and quicker to read. Why can't you do that, Scott?

Oh look, I can make it even easier:
<http://i.imgur.com/3eackq7.png>

So from the x^2 line at (3,9), the derivative 2x at the same x axis is
(3,6), giving a slope of 1.40564764938 radians or 80.537677792 degrees
for the x^2 line at (3,9). Simple, huh?

We can go as close to the (0,0) point as you want, the graph will
still give the correct answer, and much more quickly than you can get
by re-doing your equation each time.

<http://i.imgur.com/2NtVU9T.png>
>From the x^2 line at (0.25, 0.0625), the derivative 2x at the same x
axis is (0.25,0.5), giving a slope of 0.463647609001 radians or
26.5650511771 degrees for the x^2 line at (0.25, 0.0625). Simple, huh?

I've shown you how to do this -- and if I can do it, then you can too.

<snicker>

-- 

Shiny Tinfoil Spankard (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:
=====================================
MID: <13d33d0638e0ec690b63393d0710f658@dizum.com>
MID: <80d61a6928a9e7df316c519affcf3838@dizum.com>
The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier
Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create
*sinusoids*).

MID: <ff81cb60204ffbd777cd15a6261cfb67@dizum.com>
That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms.

That superposition is the same as wave interference.

That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves.

That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things.

That RMS isn't a DC voltage.

That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207
volts RMS L-L.

That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1.

The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave.

That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical
engineering, physics and control systems engineering.

What a positive or negative vector is.

That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per
Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero.

That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic".

That "gaffe" is not spelled "gaff".

That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2
positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron.

That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* effective
nuclear charge.

What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.

That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples.

That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the
atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law to within 1.337842%
margin of error *worst* *case* at 70 F.

That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of
a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does
*not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames.

That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes
into account molar volume.

That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error".

That water can be plasmized.

That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge.

MID: <382fa822c6dbca9a6f88cab5a104bf62@dizum.com>
That formulas *are* math.

How to use a graphing calculator.

MID: <8e4e21f5748d85599f700ee8ff174611@dizum.com>
What LaTeX notation is.

MID: <8e4e21f5748d85599f700ee8ff174611@dizum.com>
That LaTeX notation *is* "plain text", not a script.

MID: <c1c02875af2c6615bd30ab20416b75b5@dizum.com>
That a formula in LaTeX notation is still a formula.

That scientific notation and LaTeX notation are not the same.
DUURRRHH! GoogleTard. LOL

That LaTeX notation can be copy-n-pasted into a LaTeX compatible
program to view the formula.

That image size != image resolution.

That inverse operations are not inverse functions.

That RMS voltage is a mathematical approximation.

That there are _three_ methods of mathematically approximating RMS
voltage.

The difference between Euler's Theorems and Euler's Formulas.

That x^2 and 2x are not co-functions.

And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph.
=====================================

Shiny Tinfoil Spankard the Mathematical Moron maunders and mewls:
=====================================
"All you've shown us is graphs of formulas. No equal signs, no maths
done." - Shiny Tinfoil Brain demonstrates his Mathematical Moronism.
=====================================

SPNAK!

<snicker>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#570871

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard), in
<news:p5d1hbpiu6c0iirnv88cfol2qeuco8lemu@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
first into the wood chipper again:

> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:

>> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard), in

>>> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:

>>>> vallor, in <news:dn3n3nFr88hU5@mid.individual.net> did thusly jump

> How ever did i miss these gems?...

Possibly because you were backpedaling so fast you zipped right by
them as you cowardly snipped out all the SPNAK!age I delivered upon
your brightly glowing ass. LOL

>>>>> The inverse operation to the derivative is the integral.

>>>> No, the inverse function to the derivative is the integral.

> And then you discover:

>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral>
>> "Roughly speaking, the operation of integration is the reverse of
>> differentiation. For this reason, the term integral may also refer to
>> the related notion of the antiderivative"

> See where it says "operation"?
> 
> Self-SPNAKKY!

I see where someone's been editing the Wiki in a desperate attempt at
proving himself "not wrong". LOL

I've said all along that integration is an operation. You're the moron
who claimed that sine and cosine were inverse operations and not
co-functions, for which you got soundly SPNAK!d. LOL

>>> The derivative of x^2 is 2x.  Does that make them also
>>> "co-functions"?

>> Bwahahahaaa! Shiny Tinfoil Spankard is now claiming that x^2 is a
>> trigonometric function whose value for the complement of an angle is
>> equal to the value of 2x of the angle itself.
>> 
>> What's the angle of x^2 and 2x, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard? Are you
>> confused, Mathematical Moron? Yeah you are. LOL

> Rolf & Lol! with a bwahaha too.

You're attempting to divert attention away from all that SPNAK!age
you've taken for being a moron. Again. LOL

Have you figured out yet that finding the anti-derivative is the same
as finding the integral, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> Fakey thinks derivatives are a mysterious "something"

Have you figured out yet that the derivative of a constant is always
equal to zero, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> applicable only to trig functions.  Fakey thereby

Have you figured out yet that stock trading requires mathematical
derivatives, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> demonstrates beyond all reasonable doubt that s/h/it not

Have you figured out yet that the first derivative velocity does not
equal the second derivative acceleration, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> only doesn't understand what derivatives & integrals are,

Says the moron who confused the mathematical derivatives used in stock
trading with stock options. LOL

Have you figured out yet that mathematical derivatives as used in
stock trading are not stock options, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> but has been successful in resisting any enlightening

Have you figured out yet that wave interference and superposition are
the same thing, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> influence through hours of midnite "google-raping"

Have you figured out yet that wave interference works the same for
standing and traveling waves, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> sessions.  Not to mention my stern but fruitless

Have you figured out yet that formulas are math, Mathematical Moron?
LOL

> mentoring.

Projection. You're the one being mentored. Your desperate GoogleRaping
then scurrying back to Usenet to tell everyone how much you've learned
is proof. LOL

Have you figured out yet that there's a formula in that plain text
LaTeX notation, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> Here's a suggestion, betelnut.  Google up the derivative

Have you figured out yet that the first derivative of the position
vector with respect to time is velocity, Mathematical Moron? LOL

Have you figured out yet that the second derivative of the position
vector with respect to time is acceleration, Mathematical Moron? LOL

Have you figured out yet that the third derivative of the position
vector with respect to time is jerk, Mathematical Moron? LOL

Have you figured out yet that the fourth derivative of the position
vector with respect to time is snap, Mathematical Moron? LOL

Have you figured out yet that the fifth derivative of the position
vector with respect to time is crackle, Mathematical Moron? LOL

Have you figured out yet that the sixth derivative of the position
vector with respect to time is pop, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> of d/dx(x^2),

You mean d/dx(x^n) = nx^(n-1), therefore d/dx(x^2) = 2x.

Your differentiation is only true for x=0 and x=2, Mathematical Moron.

<http://i.imgur.com/EMD7k2a.png>

That's because differentiation is a linear operation, thus it
satisfies the additivity and homogeneity properties of the
superposition principle, which you've already demonstrated your
ineptitude on. LOL

Have you figured out yet that wave interference and superposition are
the same thing, Mathematical Moron? LOL

Have you figured out yet that wave interference works the same for
standing and traveling waves, Mathematical Moron? LOL

Have you figured out yet that Euler's sinewave summation equation is a
result of superposition and the additivity rule of vector summation,
Mathematical Moron? LOL

> then come back here wailing, "See? Shiny

Have you figured out yet the difference between inverse operations and
cofunctionality, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> Tinfoil Brain didn't know that the derivative of x^2 is 2x."

That's called the Power Rule, Moron. You weren't talking about the
Power Rule, Moron. You were talking about x^2 and 2x being
co-functions.

> Maybe, if you really pay attention, you can find another

Have you figured out yet that "gaffe" is not spelled "gaff",
Mathematical Moron? LOL

> misspelling upon which to pounce.  Hey, when you're a

Have you figured out yet that "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic",
Mathematical Moron? LOL

> k00k without a Lotus, you gotta take what you can get.

Hey, when you're a backpedaling history-revising spankard, you've got
to fanfic and backpedal like crazy. LOL

Have you figured out yet that there are three methods of
mathematically approximating RMS voltage, Mathematical Moron? LOL

>>> The schooling you get here on auk doesn't seem to make
>>> you any smarter, even when you get a warm, cherry-red,
>>> glow-in-the-daylight ass to help you remember.

>> Have you figured out yet the difference between inverse operations and
>> cofunctionality, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> You weren't paying attention to anything i explained to
> you, fakey.

You didn't explain anything. You bleated out your incorrectitude, you
cowardly snipped out my SPNAK!ing you silly, you raped Google, then
you came back and attempted to k'lame you'd explained it. LOL

> Let's reduce & simplify for you:
> Have you figgered out yet that if you stop beating
> yourself on the head with a hammer, it feels sooooo good?

You'd know that. LOL

> -- 
> "Water has *no* 'negative poles' "

Have you figured out yet that monomolecular water is not tetrahedral
like methane, rather having a bent geometric configuration per the
VSEPR theory's AXE method, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard? LOL

>   --His Nibs reveals the shocking discovery that the
>     water molecule is an electrical monopole.

Still trying to figure out what makes a dipole a dipole, Shiny Tinfoil
Spankard? LOL

You're the *moron* who k'lamed the water molecule had 2 positive poles
and 2 negative poles which is blither-blather from a moron. LOL

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_molecule.html>
==================================================
Ab initio calculations on isolated molecules, however, do not confirm
the presence of significant directed electron density where lone pairs
are expected. The negative charge is more evenly smeared out along the
line between where these lone pairs would have been expected, and lies
closer to the center of the O-atom than the centers of positive charge
on the hydrogen atoms (as left).

Early 5-point molecular models, with explicit negative charge where
the lone pairs are purported to be, fared poorly in describing
hydrogen bonding, but more recent models show some promise. Although
there is no apparent consensus of opinion [116], such descriptions of
substantial sp3-hybridized lone pairs in the isolated water molecule
should perhaps be avoided [117], as an sp2-hybridized structure (plus
a pz orbital) is indicated.
==================================================

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/images/molecul2.gif>

The *difference* in electronegativity between the O and H atoms,
combined with the molecule's bent geometric configuration, gives water
its dipolar properties.

Aren't you the *moron* who k'lamed that water is tetrahedral, like
methane? LOL!

SPNAK!

I bet you wish you could be right just once, huh, Moron.

<snicker>

-- 

Shiny Tinfoil Spankard (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:
=====================================
MID: <13d33d0638e0ec690b63393d0710f658@dizum.com>
MID: <80d61a6928a9e7df316c519affcf3838@dizum.com>
The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier
Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create
*sinusoids*).

MID: <ff81cb60204ffbd777cd15a6261cfb67@dizum.com>
That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms.

That superposition is the same as wave interference.

That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves.

That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things.

That RMS isn't a DC voltage.

That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207
volts RMS L-L.

That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1.

The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave.

That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical
engineering, physics and control systems engineering.

What a positive or negative vector is.

That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per
Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero.

That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic".

That "gaffe" is not spelled "gaff".

That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2
positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron.

That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* effective
nuclear charge.

What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.

That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples.

That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the
atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law to within 1.337842%
margin of error *worst* *case* at 70 F.

That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of
a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does
*not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames.

That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes
into account molar volume.

That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error".

That water can be plasmized.

That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge.

MID: <382fa822c6dbca9a6f88cab5a104bf62@dizum.com>
That formulas *are* math.

How to use a graphing calculator.

MID: <8e4e21f5748d85599f700ee8ff174611@dizum.com>
What LaTeX notation is.

MID: <8e4e21f5748d85599f700ee8ff174611@dizum.com>
That LaTeX notation *is* "plain text", not a script.

MID: <c1c02875af2c6615bd30ab20416b75b5@dizum.com>
That a formula in LaTeX notation is still a formula.

That scientific notation and LaTeX notation are not the same.
DUURRRHH! GoogleTard. LOL

That LaTeX notation can be copy-n-pasted into a LaTeX compatible
program to view the formula.

That image size != image resolution.

That inverse operations are not inverse functions.

That RMS voltage is a mathematical approximation.

That there are _three_ methods of mathematically approximating RMS
voltage.

The difference between Euler's Theorems and Euler's Formulas.

That x^2 and 2x are not co-functions.

And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph.
=====================================

Shiny Tinfoil Spankard the Mathematical Moron maunders and mewls:
=====================================
"All you've shown us is graphs of formulas. No equal signs, no maths
done." - Shiny Tinfoil Brain demonstrates his Mathematical Moronism.
=====================================

SPNAK!

<snicker>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#570874

In article <4f8ddb4f2d99a9d5032d45d92517422a@dizum.com>, 
FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx says...


> brightly glowing ass.
> 



-- 
Rick Sabian's Allstar Canadian Assworm Zydeco Band

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#570877 — Re: fakeys meltdown

On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 07:58:44 +0200 (CEST), Friendly Neighborhood Vote
Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

>Have you figured out yet that the first derivative of the position
>vector with respect to time is velocity, Mathematical Moron? LOL
>
>Have you figured out yet that the second derivative of the position
>vector with respect to time is acceleration, Mathematical Moron? LOL
>
>Have you figured out yet that the third derivative of the position
>vector with respect to time is jerk, Mathematical Moron? LOL
>
>Have you figured out yet that the fourth derivative of the position
>vector with respect to time is snap, Mathematical Moron? LOL
>
>Have you figured out yet that the fifth derivative of the position
>vector with respect to time is crackle, Mathematical Moron? LOL
>
>Have you figured out yet that the sixth derivative of the position
>vector with respect to time is pop, Mathematical Moron? LOL

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#570914

On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 01:58:44 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler  
Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard), in
> <news:p5d1hbpiu6c0iirnv88cfol2qeuco8lemu@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
> first into the wood chipper again:
>
>> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:
>
>>> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard), in
>
>>>> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:
>
>>>>> vallor, in <news:dn3n3nFr88hU5@mid.individual.net> did thusly jump
>
>> How ever did i miss these gems?...
>
> Possibly because you were backpedaling so fast you zipped right by
> them as you cowardly snipped out all the SPNAK!age I delivered upon
> your brightly glowing ass. LOL
>
>>>>>> The inverse operation to the derivative is the integral.
>
>>>>> No, the inverse function to the derivative is the integral.
>
>> And then you discover:
>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral>
>>> "Roughly speaking, the operation of integration is the reverse of
>>> differentiation. For this reason, the term integral may also refer to
>>> the related notion of the antiderivative"
>
>> See where it says "operation"?
>>
>> Self-SPNAKKY!
>
> I see where someone's been editing the Wiki in a desperate attempt at
> proving himself "not wrong". LOL
>
> I've said all along that integration is an operation. You're the moron
> who claimed that sine and cosine were inverse operations and not
> co-functions, for which you got soundly SPNAK!d. LOL
>
>>>> The derivative of x^2 is 2x.  Does that make them also
>>>> "co-functions"?
>
>>> Bwahahahaaa! Shiny Tinfoil Spankard is now claiming that x^2 is a
>>> trigonometric function whose value for the complement of an angle is
>>> equal to the value of 2x of the angle itself.
>>>
>>> What's the angle of x^2 and 2x, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard? Are you
>>> confused, Mathematical Moron? Yeah you are. LOL
>
>> Rolf & Lol! with a bwahaha too.
>
> You're attempting to divert attention away from all that SPNAK!age
> you've taken for being a moron. Again. LOL
>
> Have you figured out yet that finding the anti-derivative is the same
> as finding the integral, Mathematical Moron? LOL
>
>> Fakey thinks derivatives are a mysterious "something"
>
> Have you figured out yet that the derivative of a constant is always
> equal to zero, Mathematical Moron? LOL
>
>> applicable only to trig functions.  Fakey thereby
>
> Have you figured out yet that stock trading requires mathematical
> derivatives, Mathematical Moron? LOL
>
>> demonstrates beyond all reasonable doubt that s/h/it not
>
> Have you figured out yet that the first derivative velocity does not
> equal the second derivative acceleration, Mathematical Moron? LOL
>
>> only doesn't understand what derivatives & integrals are,
>
> Says the moron who confused the mathematical derivatives used in stock
> trading with stock options. LOL
>
> Have you figured out yet that mathematical derivatives as used in
> stock trading are not stock options, Mathematical Moron? LOL
>
>> but has been successful in resisting any enlightening
>
> Have you figured out yet that wave interference and superposition are
> the same thing, Mathematical Moron? LOL
>
>> influence through hours of midnite "google-raping"
>
> Have you figured out yet that wave interference works the same for
> standing and traveling waves, Mathematical Moron? LOL
>
>> sessions.  Not to mention my stern but fruitless
>
> Have you figured out yet that formulas are math, Mathematical Moron?
> LOL
>
>> mentoring.
>
> Projection. You're the one being mentored. Your desperate GoogleRaping
> then scurrying back to Usenet to tell everyone how much you've learned
> is proof. LOL
>
> Have you figured out yet that there's a formula in that plain text
> LaTeX notation, Mathematical Moron? LOL
>
>> Here's a suggestion, betelnut.  Google up the derivative
>
> Have you figured out yet that the first derivative of the position
> vector with respect to time is velocity, Mathematical Moron? LOL
>
> Have you figured out yet that the second derivative of the position
> vector with respect to time is acceleration, Mathematical Moron? LOL
>
> Have you figured out yet that the third derivative of the position
> vector with respect to time is jerk, Mathematical Moron? LOL
>
> Have you figured out yet that the fourth derivative of the position
> vector with respect to time is snap, Mathematical Moron? LOL
>
> Have you figured out yet that the fifth derivative of the position
> vector with respect to time is crackle, Mathematical Moron? LOL
>
> Have you figured out yet that the sixth derivative of the position
> vector with respect to time is pop, Mathematical Moron? LOL
>
>> of d/dx(x^2),
>
> You mean d/dx(x^n) = nx^(n-1), therefore d/dx(x^2) = 2x.
>
> Your differentiation is only true for x=0 and x=2, Mathematical Moron.
>
> <http://i.imgur.com/EMD7k2a.png>
>
> That's because differentiation is a linear operation, thus it
> satisfies the additivity and homogeneity properties of the
> superposition principle, which you've already demonstrated your
> ineptitude on. LOL
>
> Have you figured out yet that wave interference and superposition are
> the same thing, Mathematical Moron? LOL
>
> Have you figured out yet that wave interference works the same for
> standing and traveling waves, Mathematical Moron? LOL
>
> Have you figured out yet that Euler's sinewave summation equation is a
> result of superposition and the additivity rule of vector summation,
> Mathematical Moron? LOL
>
>> then come back here wailing, "See? Shiny
>
> Have you figured out yet the difference between inverse operations and
> cofunctionality, Mathematical Moron? LOL
>
>> Tinfoil Brain didn't know that the derivative of x^2 is 2x."
>
> That's called the Power Rule, Moron. You weren't talking about the
> Power Rule, Moron. You were talking about x^2 and 2x being
> co-functions.
>
>> Maybe, if you really pay attention, you can find another
>
> Have you figured out yet that "gaffe" is not spelled "gaff",
> Mathematical Moron? LOL
>
>> misspelling upon which to pounce.  Hey, when you're a
>
> Have you figured out yet that "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic",
> Mathematical Moron? LOL
>
>> k00k without a Lotus, you gotta take what you can get.
>
> Hey, when you're a backpedaling history-revising spankard, you've got
> to fanfic and backpedal like crazy. LOL
>
> Have you figured out yet that there are three methods of
> mathematically approximating RMS voltage, Mathematical Moron? LOL

notice how he doesn't deny:

1) being a k0ok.
2) not having a lotus.

>
>>>> The schooling you get here on auk doesn't seem to make
>>>> you any smarter, even when you get a warm, cherry-red,
>>>> glow-in-the-daylight ass to help you remember.
>
>>> Have you figured out yet the difference between inverse operations and
>>> cofunctionality, Mathematical Moron? LOL
>
>> You weren't paying attention to anything i explained to
>> you, fakey.
>
> You didn't explain anything. You bleated out your incorrectitude, you
> cowardly snipped out my SPNAK!ing you silly, you raped Google, then
> you came back and attempted to k'lame you'd explained it. LOL
>
>> Let's reduce & simplify for you:
>> Have you figgered out yet that if you stop beating
>> yourself on the head with a hammer, it feels sooooo good?
>
> You'd know that. LOL
>
>> --
>> "Water has *no* 'negative poles' "
>
> Have you figured out yet that monomolecular water is not tetrahedral
> like methane, rather having a bent geometric configuration per the
> VSEPR theory's AXE method, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard? LOL
>
>>   --His Nibs reveals the shocking discovery that the
>>     water molecule is an electrical monopole.
>
> Still trying to figure out what makes a dipole a dipole, Shiny Tinfoil
> Spankard? LOL
>
> You're the *moron* who k'lamed the water molecule had 2 positive poles
> and 2 negative poles which is blither-blather from a moron. LOL
>
> <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_molecule.html>
> ==================================================
> Ab initio calculations on isolated molecules, however, do not confirm
> the presence of significant directed electron density where lone pairs
> are expected. The negative charge is more evenly smeared out along the
> line between where these lone pairs would have been expected, and lies
> closer to the center of the O-atom than the centers of positive charge
> on the hydrogen atoms (as left).
>
> Early 5-point molecular models, with explicit negative charge where
> the lone pairs are purported to be, fared poorly in describing
> hydrogen bonding, but more recent models show some promise. Although
> there is no apparent consensus of opinion [116], such descriptions of
> substantial sp3-hybridized lone pairs in the isolated water molecule
> should perhaps be avoided [117], as an sp2-hybridized structure (plus
> a pz orbital) is indicated.
> ==================================================
>
> <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/images/molecul2.gif>
>
> The *difference* in electronegativity between the O and H atoms,
> combined with the molecule's bent geometric configuration, gives water
> its dipolar properties.
>
> Aren't you the *moron* who k'lamed that water is tetrahedral, like
> methane? LOL!
>
> SPNAK!
>
> I bet you wish you could be right just once, huh, Moron.
>
> <snicker>
>


-- 
have you heard about the lotusLoser?
he's a loser but he still keeps on tryin'...

2nd verse: (by: bender@the.future)

have you heard about the lotusLoser
beaten by the queen of pembroke each time
have you heard about the lotusLoser
he's a luser but he still keeps on cryin'...

-

LOL

well i guess if we went to:

http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/color-summarizer/

and gave it the URL to the image THAT YOU POSTED IN POST:
<617072d3bd042b9634ebeb7c28503997@dizum.com>

<http://i.imgur.com/gchDiBs.png>

I took that on my way to eat lunch. I tried to make an index card with
backward writing so the SPANKY-SPANKY! reflection would show up with
frontward writing, but apparently I can't write backward legibly, so
you gets what you gets."

it would say "definitely not green", right???

http://i.imgur.com/1CkNIDC.png

D'OH!!!!

*SPNAKITY-SPNAKITY*

-

"People didn't cause the Great Depression, Liberal ko0kTarD. Governmental  
policy did." - Fakey in MID <7880b90ad2ecebe35ba01b4557597d80%40dizum.com>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Depression
"The initial stock market crash triggered a "panic sell-off" that made the  
stock market go even lower."

so... so the "government" panicked, snickers?

funny that a bona-fide conservative horatio alger hero type would want the  
government stepping in to save the stock market.

"Current theories may be broadly classified into two main points of view  
and several heterodox points of view.

First, there are demand-driven theories, from Keynesian and institutional  
economists who argue that the depression was caused by a widespread loss  
of confidence that led to underconsumption. The demand-driven theories  
argue that the financial crisis following the 1929 crash led to a sudden  
and persistent reduction in consumption and investment spending.[1] Once  
panic and deflation set in, many people believed they could avoid further  
losses by keeping clear of the markets. Holding money therefore became  
profitable as prices dropped lower and a given amount of money bought ever  
more goods, exacerbating the drop in demand.

Second, there are the monetarists, who believe that the Great Depression  
started as an ordinary recession, but that significant policy mistakes by  
monetary authorities (especially the Federal Reserve), caused a shrinking  
of the money supply which greatly exacerbated the economic situation,  
causing a recession to descend into the Great Depression. Related to this  
explanation are those who point to debt deflation causing those who borrow  
to owe ever more in real terms."

wait?  what?  no major "third" konservative k0okTheory blaming the  
government for everything mentioned?

odd, that.  eh, lotusLoser?

-

the never-ending saga of fakey's "lotus"...
https://web.archive.org/web/20160408001051/http://i.imgur.com/e3OrQSq.png

-

"sines, sines, everywhere there's sines
blocking up the snickerTurds, breaking his mind"
http://i.imgur.com/Z4p1Z55.png

-

FNVWe attempts to rewrite physics texts in Message-ID:  
<3dcad3dd0a0d39727506717506883c26@dizum.com>

">>let's not forget that mine also had the correct applied mathematics
>> equations unlike fakey the supposed know-it-all:
>>  phase A: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x)
>> phase B: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi)
>>  voltage difference between phase A and phase B at any point x in time:
>> 120*sin(2*pi*60*x) - 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi) = 240*sin(2*pi*60*x)

Wrong, as has already been proven. What does it say below, you fecking  
*moron*?

"The _sum_ E(θ) ≡ E(a) + E(b) can be written thusly:""

it says that you don't even know how to correctly apply mathematics to  
real-world AC electricity, snickerTurds.  it says that you're in denial  
about the inversion of your AC legs.

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/alternating-current/chpt-10/single-phase-power-systems/
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/02170.png
"To mathematically calculate voltage between “hot” wires, we must subtract  
voltages, because their polarity marks show them to be opposed to each  
other:"
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/12112.png

http://www.samlexamerica.com/support/documents/WhitePaper-120240VACSingleSplitPhaseandMultiWireBranchCircuits.pdf

on page 2:

** NOTE: The phase of Hot Leg 2 (Phase B) is in the
  opposite direction - i.e., 180° apart from the phase
  of Hot Leg L1 (Phase A)

*COUGH*
SPNAK!!

-

i know a guy on the internet who will draw a triangular sine wave in ASCII  
art if you ask nicely.</GROUCHO MARX>
see: Message-ID: <4ba4a50aaaebc7fb8a348293c5cf9f13@dizum.com>

-

snickerTurds can't seem to refute the following:

- begin snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --
/*
HOW TO RUN: download arbitrary precision libraries from:

http://www.hvks.com/Numerical/arbitrary_precision.html

place those files in a directory and save this file as  
snickerSinewaveStew.cpp inside that same directory.

compiles with:

gcc -Wall -I. precisioncore.cpp snickerSinewaveStew.cpp -lstdc++

run with:

./a.out

enjoy the LULZ ;)

*/
#include <fprecision.h>
#include <iostream.h>

using namespace std;

int main(){

   //float_precision MIN=float_precision(0);
   //float_precision MAX=float_precision(0);

   float_precision STEP=float_precision(.0001);
   float_precision t=float_precision(0);    // time variable
   float_precision sum=float_precision(0);  // sum of SnickerTurd's  
ridiculous sinewave mess
   float_precision snickerPrediction=float_precision(2550.25);  //  
snickerTurd's erroneous k0oK-k'lame Sum
   float_precision PI;
   PI =_float_table(_PI,25);

   // this while loop will run forever, but snickers doesn't understand why
   while(sum < snickerPrediction){

     // fakey's Sinewave Stew(TM) see: MID:  
<db672705e57e4932eba3632562e0a941@dizum.com>
     sum = (float_precision(150) * float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(120)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(20.25) * float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(33)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(1400)* float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(150)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +(float_precision(20)*  
float_precision(sin(float_precision(5013)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(600)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(13)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)))  
+  
(float_precision(360)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(1209)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)));

     // perhaps show a few values larger than +2300 to educate teh  
snickerTurds
     if(sum>float_precision(2300)){
       cout << "t=" << t << " sum=" << sum << std::endl;
     }
     t = t+STEP;
   }
/*

Message-ID: <c8523e6d9c31e3282bbe581fa525a2a8@dizum.com>
"Oh, yeah... it's 2550.25 volts... so why does your graph not even
reach 2500 volts, given that eventually all the sinewaves will
constructively interfere (ie: *add* to each other) to *sum* to 2550.25
volts?"

Fakey, it doesn't reach 2500 volts because the summation of your sinewaves  
never reaches that.  They never reach their max values at the same time.   
That's how stupid you are.

Message-ID: <731d08dcc702b9a8a13077ffc201e91f@dizum.com>
"I most certainly *did* prove otherwise. It can't even arrive at the
correct sinewave summation voltage of 2550.25 volts"

Fakey, you only *proved* that you are too inept to graph the equations and  
notice a few things about the interactions of their frequencies when  
summed.

the next line of code is never executed, but snickers DEFINITELY can't  
figure out why it isn't and instead has a bunch of lame excuses while  
still having not produced a value for t where the sum=2550.25, as he has  
k0okily proklamed in many usenet messages that are archived FOREVER.

*/
   cout << "snickerTurds was right! the sum is " << sum << " at time t=" <<  
t <<endl;
}
- end snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --

-

Fakey irrationally demands a theme song to foam to:
"all I really want your pathetic pwned ass to do is write me a classic  
rock song as tribute to your Usenet Lord and Master..."  
<f4f9193fa7d28b760a9de681e61427e7@dizum.com>

-

Somewhere Abouts Round Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:25:03 -0500, Friendly  
Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

<snicker>

Fag. LOL
Idiot. LOL
Moron. LOL
Tranny. LOL
Libtard. LOL
Crackhead. LOL
GableTard. LOL
DildoRider. LOL
Bad Musician. LOL
Stick Figure. LOL
Terrible Liar. LOL
Sinewave Spammer. LOL
Outerfilthing Stalker. LOL
Talentless FrothMonkey. LOL
Math Challenged Halfwit. LOL
Klimate Katastrophe Kook. LOL
Defeated Tearful Spankard. LOL
Waster Of Time To Save $10. LOL
Worst Maker Of Sinewaves In The History Of Usenet. LOL

<the band strikes up a rousing version of "on top of old smokey">

on top of old snick-ers, all covered with Fag. LOL
is where my usenet lord and mas-ter
can go straight to hell*

*hell doesn't exist.  hope everybody is having a productive evening.

-

http://i.imgur.com/2tH6zVB.jpg

http://cafepress.com/kooktown

http://i.imgur.com/pnWqhSG.jpg

-

If my poasts are offensive to you, you can always block all From: headers  
containing "root@127.0.0.1", unless you are an idiot who would like to  
yammer about "morphing" and maybe try to lodge some frivolous complaints  
to my news provider, then please be sure to ignore this helpful  
information and have fun making an ass of yourself in public.  :)

if that route of silencing those horrid opinions of mine that you  
downloaded to your computer under duress doesn't work you can always try:  
http://i.imgur.com/jlsN9JX.png?2

-

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
The Gish Gallop is often used as an indirect argument from authority — as  
it appears to paint the galloper as an expert in a broad range of subjects  
or with an extensive knowledge of an individual one. Simultaneously it  
presents opponents (in spoken debates) or refuters (in written,  
Internet-based ones) as incompetent bumblers who didn't do their homework  
before the debate. Such emphasis on style over substance is the reason  
many scientists disdain public debates as a forum for disseminating  
opinions. - Page #1 from the Gospel of SnickerTurd

-

Coming soon!  To a newsgroup near you!:

$ perl fakeyBot.pl
FakeyBot>       I'm FakeyBot. What's your name so I can Google-stalk you,  
look you up on Radaris, and hurl invective and probably-illegal harrassing  
bile from behind an anonymous dizum account?  <snicker>
You>    Robert Michael Wolfe
FakeyBot>       Oh look, you're back again to polish my size 16 steel-toed  
boot with your colon and listen to me talk about bestiality and cocks,  
Robert. <snicker>
Robert> you talk about cocks a lot.
FakeyBot>       Oh, I talk about sex a lot?
Robert> gay sex, mostly...
FakeyBot>       Fag!

(just as useful as the original!)

-

snickers the wonderturd describes how he alerted lots of his kiddie pr0n  
friends to the ensuing FBI sting in message  
<b5e7da79a455d0c9227b1b50e25e7ea1@dizum.com>:
"That's easy enough to do... how do you think my crew uncovered the
largest CP ring using Tor and I2P, which we promptly turned over to
the FBI? I discovered a way to uncover the IP addresses the I2P users were  
using, and a way of tracking Eepsites back to their IP addresses, then we  
figured out that we could DDOS a Tor IP address and modify Tor headers  
while checking whether a Tor hidden service was still up, then using  
process of elimination to pinpoint the IP address hosting that hidden  
service. It's not rocket science.

_The I2P community got all up in arms when I discussed on their forum how  
I was doing it, and that it'd be a good way of cleaning up I2P so it can  
get on with being a platform to research anonymous communication... my  
distinct impression was that the "anonymity
research platform" story was just a cover story to allow pervs to
trade CP._  (NOTE: admits to participating in what he "suspected" was a  
kiddie pr0n network.)

That Silk Road 2.0 was taken offline in the ensuing FBI Operation
Onymous was just icing on the cake."

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016

 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#571129

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka
DildoRider) of 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey),
socked up as sucksroot@127.0.0.1, in
<news:op.yf0qcfbqtm21m2@benson.localhost> did thusly jump head first
into the wood chipper again:

> notice how he doesn't deny:
> 
> 1) being a k0ok.
> 2) not having a lotus.

Proof, Stalky McCrackHead?

<snicker>

Fag. LOL
Idiot. LOL
Moron. LOL
Tranny. LOL
Libtard. LOL
Crackhead. LOL
GableTard. LOL
DildoRider. LOL
Bad Musician. LOL
Stick Figure. LOL
Terrible Liar. LOL
Obsessed Retard. LOL
Sinewave Spammer. LOL
Cracky McCrackhead. LOL
Outerfilthing Stalker. LOL
Photofuckering Fuckwit. LOL
Talentless FrothMonkey. LOL
Math Challenged Halfwit. LOL
Klimate Katastrophe Kook. LOL
Defeated Tearful Spankard. LOL
Waster Of Time To Save $10. LOL
Worst Maker Of Sinewaves In Usenet History. LOL

<snicker>

-- 

Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka
DildoRider, aka Teh Mop Jockey)
5907 Stanton Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA
(412) 853-6395
(412) 799-0532
(412) 665-8289
(412) 404-8757

DildoRider admits he's stoooopid:
MID: <c65504c436778934b3e8a0fb022b7618@dizum.com>
=================================================
>> it appears I've kicked your ass so hard it's
>> damaged your brain, DildoRider.

> then it appears that you like shooting fish in
> barrels, intellectually lazy fuckhead that you are.

Well, you've just admitted that intellectually kicking your ass is
akin to shooting fish in a barrel... IOW, you've admitted that you're
stoooopid. No un-ringing that bell.

<snicker>
=================================================

DildoRider admits he's "really stupid" (his words). LOL
MID: <8a9faed11123abfaa1257fb33fb0c082@dizum.com>
=================================================
> so what you're saying is that your targets for attack
> have to be really stupid or else you can't manage?
=================================================

DildoRider admits much more about himself:
MID: <36c6802852caf4f712515dedb738e450@dizum.com>
=================================================
"absolutely and completely retarded, insane, gay, ugly, smelly,
toothless, dirt-poor, incontinent and possibly homeless"
=================================================

This is a libtard's method of "winning", for fuck sake.

150 IQ? LOL

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#571134

On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 00:56:06 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler  
Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka
> DildoRider) of 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey),
> socked up as sucksroot@127.0.0.1, in
> <news:op.yf0qcfbqtm21m2@benson.localhost> did thusly jump head first
> into the wood chipper again:
>
>> notice how he doesn't deny:
>>
>> 1) being a k0ok.
>> 2) not having a lotus.
>
> Proof, Stalky McCrackHead?


oh, proof that you're a stalky mccrackhead?

what about when you stalked my parents?

K0ok?

LOL

>
> <snicker>
>
> Fag. LOL
> Idiot. LOL
> Moron. LOL
> Tranny. LOL
> Libtard. LOL
> Crackhead. LOL
> GableTard. LOL
> DildoRider. LOL
> Bad Musician. LOL
> Stick Figure. LOL
> Terrible Liar. LOL
> Obsessed Retard. LOL
> Sinewave Spammer. LOL
> Cracky McCrackhead. LOL
> Outerfilthing Stalker. LOL
> Photofuckering Fuckwit. LOL
> Talentless FrothMonkey. LOL
> Math Challenged Halfwit. LOL
> Klimate Katastrophe Kook. LOL
> Defeated Tearful Spankard. LOL
> Waster Of Time To Save $10. LOL
> Worst Maker Of Sinewaves In Usenet History. LOL
>
> <snicker>
>


-- 
ga·ble
'gab?l/
noun
the part of a wall that encloses the end of a pitched roof.
a wall topped with a gable.
noun: gable end; plural noun: gable ends
a gable-shaped canopy over a window or door.

http://www.thisoldhouse.com/toh/photos/0,,1213138,00.html
Gable
Gabled roofs are the kind young children typically draw. They have two
sloping sides that come together at a ridge, creating end walls with a
*triangular extension*, called a gable, at the top. The house shown here
has two gable roofs and two dormers, each with gable roofs of their own.
The slant, or pitch, of the gables varies, an inconsistency that many
builders try to avoid.

LOL

-

have you heard about the lotusLoser?
he's a loser but he still keeps on tryin'...

2nd verse: (by: bender@the.future)

have you heard about the lotusLoser
beaten by the queen of pembroke each time
have you heard about the lotusLoser
he's a luser but he still keeps on cryin'...

-

LOL

well i guess if we went to:

http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/color-summarizer/

and gave it the URL to the image THAT YOU POSTED IN POST:
<617072d3bd042b9634ebeb7c28503997@dizum.com>

<http://i.imgur.com/gchDiBs.png>

I took that on my way to eat lunch. I tried to make an index card with
backward writing so the SPANKY-SPANKY! reflection would show up with
frontward writing, but apparently I can't write backward legibly, so
you gets what you gets."

it would say "definitely not green", right???

http://i.imgur.com/1CkNIDC.png

D'OH!!!!

*SPNAKITY-SPNAKITY*

-

"People didn't cause the Great Depression, Liberal ko0kTarD. Governmental  
policy did." - Fakey in MID <7880b90ad2ecebe35ba01b4557597d80%40dizum.com>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Depression
"The initial stock market crash triggered a "panic sell-off" that made the  
stock market go even lower."

so... so the "government" panicked, snickers?

funny that a bona-fide conservative horatio alger hero type would want the  
government stepping in to save the stock market.

"Current theories may be broadly classified into two main points of view  
and several heterodox points of view.

First, there are demand-driven theories, from Keynesian and institutional  
economists who argue that the depression was caused by a widespread loss  
of confidence that led to underconsumption. The demand-driven theories  
argue that the financial crisis following the 1929 crash led to a sudden  
and persistent reduction in consumption and investment spending.[1] Once  
panic and deflation set in, many people believed they could avoid further  
losses by keeping clear of the markets. Holding money therefore became  
profitable as prices dropped lower and a given amount of money bought ever  
more goods, exacerbating the drop in demand.

Second, there are the monetarists, who believe that the Great Depression  
started as an ordinary recession, but that significant policy mistakes by  
monetary authorities (especially the Federal Reserve), caused a shrinking  
of the money supply which greatly exacerbated the economic situation,  
causing a recession to descend into the Great Depression. Related to this  
explanation are those who point to debt deflation causing those who borrow  
to owe ever more in real terms."

wait?  what?  no major "third" konservative k0okTheory blaming the  
government for everything mentioned?

odd, that.  eh, lotusLoser?

-

the never-ending saga of fakey's "lotus"...
https://web.archive.org/web/20160408001051/http://i.imgur.com/e3OrQSq.png

-

"sines, sines, everywhere there's sines
blocking up the snickerTurds, breaking his mind"
http://i.imgur.com/Z4p1Z55.png

-

FNVWe attempts to rewrite physics texts in Message-ID:  
<3dcad3dd0a0d39727506717506883c26@dizum.com>

">>let's not forget that mine also had the correct applied mathematics
>> equations unlike fakey the supposed know-it-all:
>>  phase A: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x)
>> phase B: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi)
>>  voltage difference between phase A and phase B at any point x in time:
>> 120*sin(2*pi*60*x) - 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi) = 240*sin(2*pi*60*x)

Wrong, as has already been proven. What does it say below, you fecking  
*moron*?

"The _sum_ E(θ) ≡ E(a) + E(b) can be written thusly:""

it says that you don't even know how to correctly apply mathematics to  
real-world AC electricity, snickerTurds.  it says that you're in denial  
about the inversion of your AC legs.

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/alternating-current/chpt-10/single-phase-power-systems/
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/02170.png
"To mathematically calculate voltage between “hot” wires, we must subtract  
voltages, because their polarity marks show them to be opposed to each  
other:"
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/12112.png

http://www.samlexamerica.com/support/documents/WhitePaper-120240VACSingleSplitPhaseandMultiWireBranchCircuits.pdf

on page 2:

** NOTE: The phase of Hot Leg 2 (Phase B) is in the
  opposite direction - i.e., 180° apart from the phase
  of Hot Leg L1 (Phase A)

*COUGH*
SPNAK!!

-

i know a guy on the internet who will draw a triangular sine wave in ASCII  
art if you ask nicely.</GROUCHO MARX>
see: Message-ID: <4ba4a50aaaebc7fb8a348293c5cf9f13@dizum.com>

-

snickerTurds can't seem to refute the following:

- begin snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --
/*
HOW TO RUN: download arbitrary precision libraries from:

http://www.hvks.com/Numerical/arbitrary_precision.html

place those files in a directory and save this file as  
snickerSinewaveStew.cpp inside that same directory.

compiles with:

gcc -Wall -I. precisioncore.cpp snickerSinewaveStew.cpp -lstdc++

run with:

./a.out

enjoy the LULZ ;)

*/
#include <fprecision.h>
#include <iostream.h>

using namespace std;

int main(){

   //float_precision MIN=float_precision(0);
   //float_precision MAX=float_precision(0);

   float_precision STEP=float_precision(.0001);
   float_precision t=float_precision(0);    // time variable
   float_precision sum=float_precision(0);  // sum of SnickerTurd's  
ridiculous sinewave mess
   float_precision snickerPrediction=float_precision(2550.25);  //  
snickerTurd's erroneous k0oK-k'lame Sum
   float_precision PI;
   PI =_float_table(_PI,25);

   // this while loop will run forever, but snickers doesn't understand why
   while(sum < snickerPrediction){

     // fakey's Sinewave Stew(TM) see: MID:  
<db672705e57e4932eba3632562e0a941@dizum.com>
     sum = (float_precision(150) * float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(120)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(20.25) * float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(33)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(1400)* float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(150)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +(float_precision(20)*  
float_precision(sin(float_precision(5013)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(600)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(13)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)))  
+  
(float_precision(360)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(1209)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)));

     // perhaps show a few values larger than +2300 to educate teh  
snickerTurds
     if(sum>float_precision(2300)){
       cout << "t=" << t << " sum=" << sum << std::endl;
     }
     t = t+STEP;
   }
/*

Message-ID: <c8523e6d9c31e3282bbe581fa525a2a8@dizum.com>
"Oh, yeah... it's 2550.25 volts... so why does your graph not even
reach 2500 volts, given that eventually all the sinewaves will
constructively interfere (ie: *add* to each other) to *sum* to 2550.25
volts?"

Fakey, it doesn't reach 2500 volts because the summation of your sinewaves  
never reaches that.  They never reach their max values at the same time.   
That's how stupid you are.

Message-ID: <731d08dcc702b9a8a13077ffc201e91f@dizum.com>
"I most certainly *did* prove otherwise. It can't even arrive at the
correct sinewave summation voltage of 2550.25 volts"

Fakey, you only *proved* that you are too inept to graph the equations and  
notice a few things about the interactions of their frequencies when  
summed.

the next line of code is never executed, but snickers DEFINITELY can't  
figure out why it isn't and instead has a bunch of lame excuses while  
still having not produced a value for t where the sum=2550.25, as he has  
k0okily proklamed in many usenet messages that are archived FOREVER.

*/
   cout << "snickerTurds was right! the sum is " << sum << " at time t=" <<  
t <<endl;
}
- end snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --

-

Fakey irrationally demands a theme song to foam to:
"all I really want your pathetic pwned ass to do is write me a classic  
rock song as tribute to your Usenet Lord and Master..."  
<f4f9193fa7d28b760a9de681e61427e7@dizum.com>

-

Somewhere Abouts Round Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:25:03 -0500, Friendly  
Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

<snicker>

Fag. LOL
Idiot. LOL
Moron. LOL
Tranny. LOL
Libtard. LOL
Crackhead. LOL
GableTard. LOL
DildoRider. LOL
Bad Musician. LOL
Stick Figure. LOL
Terrible Liar. LOL
Sinewave Spammer. LOL
Outerfilthing Stalker. LOL
Talentless FrothMonkey. LOL
Math Challenged Halfwit. LOL
Klimate Katastrophe Kook. LOL
Defeated Tearful Spankard. LOL
Waster Of Time To Save $10. LOL
Worst Maker Of Sinewaves In The History Of Usenet. LOL

<the band strikes up a rousing version of "on top of old smokey">

on top of old snick-ers, all covered with Fag. LOL
is where my usenet lord and mas-ter
can go straight to hell*

*hell doesn't exist.  hope everybody is having a productive evening.

-

http://i.imgur.com/2tH6zVB.jpg

http://cafepress.com/kooktown

http://i.imgur.com/pnWqhSG.jpg

-

If my poasts are offensive to you, you can always block all From: headers  
containing "root@127.0.0.1", unless you are an idiot who would like to  
yammer about "morphing" and maybe try to lodge some frivolous complaints  
to my news provider, then please be sure to ignore this helpful  
information and have fun making an ass of yourself in public.  :)

if that route of silencing those horrid opinions of mine that you  
downloaded to your computer under duress doesn't work you can always try:  
http://i.imgur.com/jlsN9JX.png?2

-

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
The Gish Gallop is often used as an indirect argument from authority — as  
it appears to paint the galloper as an expert in a broad range of subjects  
or with an extensive knowledge of an individual one. Simultaneously it  
presents opponents (in spoken debates) or refuters (in written,  
Internet-based ones) as incompetent bumblers who didn't do their homework  
before the debate. Such emphasis on style over substance is the reason  
many scientists disdain public debates as a forum for disseminating  
opinions. - Page #1 from the Gospel of SnickerTurd

-

Coming soon!  To a newsgroup near you!:

$ perl fakeyBot.pl
FakeyBot>       I'm FakeyBot. What's your name so I can Google-stalk you,  
look you up on Radaris, and hurl invective and probably-illegal harrassing  
bile from behind an anonymous dizum account?  <snicker>
You>    Robert Michael Wolfe
FakeyBot>       Oh look, you're back again to polish my size 16 steel-toed  
boot with your colon and listen to me talk about bestiality and cocks,  
Robert. <snicker>
Robert> you talk about cocks a lot.
FakeyBot>       Oh, I talk about sex a lot?
Robert> gay sex, mostly...
FakeyBot>       Fag!

(just as useful as the original!)

-

snickers the wonderturd describes how he alerted lots of his kiddie pr0n  
friends to the ensuing FBI sting in message  
<b5e7da79a455d0c9227b1b50e25e7ea1@dizum.com>:
"That's easy enough to do... how do you think my crew uncovered the
largest CP ring using Tor and I2P, which we promptly turned over to
the FBI? I discovered a way to uncover the IP addresses the I2P users were  
using, and a way of tracking Eepsites back to their IP addresses, then we  
figured out that we could DDOS a Tor IP address and modify Tor headers  
while checking whether a Tor hidden service was still up, then using  
process of elimination to pinpoint the IP address hosting that hidden  
service. It's not rocket science.

_The I2P community got all up in arms when I discussed on their forum how  
I was doing it, and that it'd be a good way of cleaning up I2P so it can  
get on with being a platform to research anonymous communication... my  
distinct impression was that the "anonymity
research platform" story was just a cover story to allow pervs to
trade CP._  (NOTE: admits to participating in what he "suspected" was a  
kiddie pr0n network.)

That Silk Road 2.0 was taken offline in the ensuing FBI Operation
Onymous was just icing on the cake."

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016

 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#571264

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka
DildoRider) of 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey),
socked up as sucksroot@127.0.0.1, in
<news:op.yf1s44n2tm21m2@benson.localhost> did thusly jump head first
into the wood chipper again:

> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 00:56:06 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood
> Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

>> Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka
>> DildoRider) of 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey),
>> socked up as sucksroot@127.0.0.1, in
>> <news:op.yf0qcfbqtm21m2@benson.localhost> did thusly jump head first
>> into the wood chipper again:

>>> notice how he doesn't deny:
>>>
>>> 1) being a k0ok.
>>> 2) not having a lotus.

>> Proof, Stalky McCrackHead?

> oh, proof that you're a stalky mccrackhead?

You're projecting, Stalky McCrackHead. LOL

And you evaded providing any proof. Because you're a lying kook.

<snicker>

> what about when you stalked my parents?

Says the guy who's so stalkerish he stalked and outed his own parents.
LOL

> K0ok?

Yes, you are. And you're a fag, too. And you're an idiot, too. And
you're a moron, too. And you're a tranny, too.

> LOL

LOL!

Fag. LOL
K0ok. LOL
Idiot. LOL
Moron. LOL
Tranny. LOL
Libtard. LOL
Crackhead. LOL
GableTard. LOL
DildoRider. LOL
Bad Musician. LOL
Stick Figure. LOL
Terrible Liar. LOL
Obsessed Retard. LOL
Sinewave Spammer. LOL
Cracky McCrackhead. LOL
Outerfilthing Stalker. LOL
Photofuckering Fuckwit. LOL
Talentless FrothMonkey. LOL
Math Challenged Halfwit. LOL
Klimate Katastrophe Kook. LOL
Defeated Tearful Spankard. LOL
Waster Of Time To Save $10. LOL
Worst Maker Of Sinewaves In Usenet History. LOL

<snicker>

-- 

Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka
DildoRider, aka Teh Mop Jockey)
5907 Stanton Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA
(412) 853-6395
(412) 799-0532
(412) 665-8289
(412) 404-8757

DildoRider admits he's stoooopid:
MID: <c65504c436778934b3e8a0fb022b7618@dizum.com>
=================================================
>> it appears I've kicked your ass so hard it's
>> damaged your brain, DildoRider.

> then it appears that you like shooting fish in
> barrels, intellectually lazy fuckhead that you are.

Well, you've just admitted that intellectually kicking your ass is
akin to shooting fish in a barrel... IOW, you've admitted that you're
stoooopid. No un-ringing that bell.

<snicker>
=================================================

DildoRider admits he's "really stupid" (his words). LOL
MID: <8a9faed11123abfaa1257fb33fb0c082@dizum.com>
=================================================
> so what you're saying is that your targets for attack
> have to be really stupid or else you can't manage?
=================================================

DildoRider admits much more about himself:
MID: <36c6802852caf4f712515dedb738e450@dizum.com>
=================================================
"absolutely and completely retarded, insane, gay, ugly, smelly,
toothless, dirt-poor, incontinent and possibly homeless"
=================================================

This is a libtard's method of "winning", for fuck sake.

150 IQ? LOL

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#571146

x-no-archive: yes

On 4/16/2016 9:56 PM, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka
> DildoRider) of 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey),
> socked up assucksroot@127.0.0.1, in
> <news:op.yf0qcfbqtm21m2@benson.localhost>  did thusly jump head first
> into the wood chipper again:
>
>> >notice how he doesn't deny:
>> >
>> >1) being a k0ok.
>> >2) not having a lotus.
> Proof, Stalky McCrackHead?
>
> <snicker>


He's a little melty tonight.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web