/lit/ - Literature

>>9507315

>>9477474
>mathematical proof: IUUT I-IV
At least go for the classification theorem on finite groups if you are just going for something deliberately obtuse:
only about 4 people on earth claim to be able to understand IUUT, it has been available to the public for 5 years and there is still not a general concensus as to whether or not it is true or not.
This just about sums up /lit/ in one post: your quintessential /lit/ mathematical proof hasn't even passed peer review; you post about things that have a reputation for being difficult to comprehend to try and impress the other pseudointellectuals even though you have not read them, don't understand them, and haven't even bothered to try and get to the point where you can.
The reason I don't espouse an opinion on finnegans wake is that I haven't read it, and even if I tried I probably would have a clue wtf was going on.
Your post is like someone claiming the best piece of poetry is the part of the Divine Comedy which are untranslatable, purely because if you can't understand something it must be smart.

I used to think /sci/ was full of the most cancerous iamverysmart faggots but now I see why they hate on /lit/ so much.

>pic semi-related, still > pollack