/sci/ - Science & Math

The sidebar in Concrete Mathematics was pretty funny.

>I only have a marginal interest in this subject

>>6570066
I snorted.
dumping I guess.

>>6570081

>>6570084

>>6570077
>Concrete Mathematics

Get the fuck out and never come back here.

>>6570086

>>6570093
>>6570095
haha

>>6570095

>>6570095
Jesus...

>>6570105
Yes my son?

More sad then funny but whatever

>3 PhDs in CS at top schools
>All of them retarded fucks that don't even understand the basics of their field

>>6570094
It was textbook, what am I supposed to do?

>>6570109

>>6570077
>Concrete Mathematics
cement + aggregate + water?
I prefer working in the abstract, myself.

>>6570116

>>6570115
You should be fucking ashamed of yourself for even reading that valueless trash instead of a real math book.

>>6570116

lost

>>6570121
u mad?

>>6570117
CONtinuous + disCRETE

>>6570121
Nigger what the fuck has you so sore about a textbook? I really want to know. It wasn't a great textbook, but the sidebar was funny so I posted about it in this thread. Honestly are you the same guy that comes out every time the book is mentioned?

>>6570126

>>6570095
I-I don't get it...

>>6570066
OP, where did you get that picture? I can make it worth your while if you tell me who took it.

>>6570133

>>6570119
What is this from?

>>6570094
>>6570121

m80, I'm pretty sure they still use it at Cornell, Purdue, UCB et cetera. I don't know if you've been to school, but if you take a class based around a textbook, they generally prefer you own or rent said book.

>>6570095
Is that from "Circuits" by Ulaby? I used that book and what you posted looks familiar, but I don't have the book with me.

>>6570138

>>6570140
Discrete math courses are pathetic as fuck and don't teach shit. Also CS as a whole is shit everywhere including the top schools.

>>6570153
except discrete maths

>>6570143
and this my last one

>>6570154
But armchair mathematicians and state school undergrads don't acknowledge discrete maths as real maths.

>>6570129
>CONtinuous + disCRETE = CONCRETE
niiice

>>6570143
ohh the pages of
>David c Lays linear algebra

>>6570110
I have no clue on what the p=np/p!=np problem means, but the text kinda sounds like it could go on one of those "cool science facts" threads (those with michao bukkaku, neil degrason tyrone, etc)

>>6570177
It's Ok because neither do they. God I hate my field so much

>>6570066
Ian Stewart's Concepts of Modern Mathematics has a very long winded section where it's talking about topological invariants and in particular orientability. It goes on and on about visualizing a mobious strip in front of you and running your hands along the surface. Stuff like
>Place both hands on the strip so that your palms are touching it and your fingers are pointing upward.
>Move your right hand towards the right along the surface.
>etc...
The whole explanation is needlessly long winded and convoluted, especially considering that there's a picture on the page prior to that that makes it crystal clear. Anyway, after spending a bunch of time trying to follow it's confusing instructions by waving your hands around in the air like a douchebag you come to the last line of the argument that says something like:
>You now also have a magnificent example of the style of mathematics known in the trade as 'handwaving'.

>>6570110
>>6570179

How is it wrong anyway? It looks like standard cs 101 type stuff.

>>6570180
I was expecting something like:

>you come to the last line of the argument that says something like:
>everybody walks the dinosaur

>>6570181
Because it's absurdly defining NP = RE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RE_(complexity)

>>6570086
I thought I recognized these, it's from that Haliday and resnick phyhsics book right?

>>6570141
I think its from electric circuits by nilsson

>>6570185
just wait 15 more years, it'll happen

>>6570066
Griffiths, "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics", Second Edition. Section 4.4.1 Spin-1/2.

>... "But I was extremely careful not to disturb the particle when I measured S_x." Very well, If you don't believe me, *check it out*: Measure S_z, and see what you get. (Of course, he *may* get +hbar/2, which will be embarrassing to my case--but if we repeat this whole scenario over and over, half the time he will get -hbar/2.)
> To the layman, the philosopher, or the classical physicist, a statement of the form "this particle doesn't have a well-defined position" (or momentum, or x-component of spin angular momentum, or whatever) sounds vague, incompetent, or (worse of all) profound. It is none of these. But its precise meaning is, I think, almost impossible to convey to anyone who has not studied quantum mechanics in some depth...

Basically, Griffiths is hilariously mocking those who insists on some metaphysical or profound meaning to the wave function and the fact that classical variables don't take on values in QM. Of course, a big challenge in teaching quantum mechanics is getting students (who have studied classical physics for a few years!) to let go of their instinct that position/momentum/etc are well defined--or are even meaningful--and instead accept the wave function as the only fundamental quantity.

It really is impossible to convey the precise meaning of "the particle doesn't have a well-defined position" without mathematical context, since it requires abandoning notions of point-particles. But the mathematical derivation of the Schrodinger equation and the wave function from Galilean relativity in QM in stunning, and quite final.

>>6570066
Comic sans for all the examples in an engineering book. Actually, screw that it wasn't funny, it pissed me off.

>>6570086
Oh man I remember that physics book, that was actually pretty good, what was it called again?

>>6570129
I hope these folks hating on Knuth use the non-Knuth invented math typesetting software.

What's it called again? Microsoft Word?

Suppose a giant hamburger slides down a ramp that has a 45 degree incline. The coefficient of kinetic friction between the hamburger and the ramp is 0.597, so that the net force acting on the hamburger is 6.99 x 10^3 N. What is the mass of the hamburger? What is the magnitude of the normal force that the ramp exerts on the hamburger?

>>6570308
Is Griffiths Intro to QM a good book? As in does it cover things in a nice way and in good detail?

>>6570212
They're talking about the satisfiability problem (aka Cook-Levin theorem) which is whether a boolean formula has a possible set of inputs that will produce 'true'. This problem is NP-hard. P = NP implies that it can also be solved in polynomial time which implies what they stated.

Give your professors more credit, because they know more than you.

>>6570212
>>6570212
They're talking about the satisfiability problem (aka Cook-Levin theorem) which is whether a boolean formula has a possible set of inputs that will produce 'true'. This problem is NP-hard. P = NP implies that it can also be solved in polynomial time which implies what they stated.

>>6570586

Griffiths is pretty rigorous, he proves almost everything he does, and he refers you to proofs he doesn't provide. It's complete, but to me it was a little to tedious because you slog through seemingly endless derivations.

It's probably because compared to my fellow physics students I'm not that great at mathematics

>>6570159 nice spooky warning faggot

>>6570592

1. They're not
2. SAT is not "aka Cook-Levin theorem"
3. NP-hard DOES FUCKING NOT mean that if P=NP, it can necessarily be solved in polynomial time
4. Solving SAT in no way implies RE=P which is fucking absurd.

>>6570586
>Griffiths Intro to QM
This is absolutely the best book for an absolute beginner.

It only covers very basic topics, so you won't be able to use it for learning advanced QM.

>>6570138
The story of my life.

>>6570600
Griffiths is an asshole who fills his books with phrases like 'clearly' or 'obviously' or 'the solution is trivial and left to the reader'.

protip: its trivial if you are fucking deeply immersed in advanced mathematics. most physicists actually aren't.

>>6570109
lol, damn poli sci majors

>>6570143
Fuck, I was about to go take a picture of that.

>>6570793
Reminds me of Laplace's
"Il est facile de voir que..."

>>6570600
Is there anything you prefer?

I can't stand derivations, especially in an introduction. To me, they're something I'll maybe look at after I've learned to use something practically.

What I'd like is a historical approach, that guides you through the way it was discovered, where they borrowed the math to start from originally, etc. so you can follow the chain of reasoning.

I'm looking at Griffith's here, and it starts with a little "If you are not confused by quantum physics then you haven't really understood it." and then jumps straight into "The Wave Function".

Fuck that approach. It developed in a series of steps that made sense at the time given the available evidence, and the wave function was a fairly late development.

Imagine if special relativity was taught, "Nobody understands this, and you certainly never will. Now, let's start by deriving the math for Minkowski spacetime." You could turn an idea that people can learn into an afternoon into something that people still just shrug at after a couple of years study.

>>6570160
>belittling state schools, even when many far surpass privates in quality

Enjoy your overpriced education

>>6570081
They mismatched their order of integration and differentials

>>6570793
Griffiths' "Introduction to Electrodynamics" sucked just as hard for all the same reasons

>>6570159
2spooky4sci

>>6570212
>Because it's absurdly defining NP = RE
I think it is implicit that they are looking for a *short* proof of a given proposition, say bounded in length by a polynomial of the length of the proposition, just like how it is implicit that they are looking for a proof that is verifiable in polynomial time. And search for a short proof IS in NP.

>>6570884
Baby found Griffiths hard? How cute.

>>6570934
Fuck you, that book was fucking impossible to understand in a single semester.

>>6570793
>its trivial if you are fucking deeply immersed in advanced mathematics. most physicists actually aren't.
is this supposed to be bait or someting?

>>6570066
My girlfriend was studying neuroscience and she used a book that had an illustration of some suicidal neurons killing themselves with knives.

my high school chemistry text had this rhyme:
>Do what you oughta,
>Always add acid to water
It only rhymes if you say "water" with a Northeast accent, and the authors are from Boston.

>>6570939
so that's where that saying comes from.

>>6570936
>I found it hard therefore it is shit
This is how retarded you sound.
It is hard and it is also a top notch intro EM book. If you like to be spoonfed, you might find liberal arts interesting.

>>6570934
What's the matter?
Not actually having a degree in physics got you down?
Or maybe it is your lack of a fruitful life and career outside of being a troll that makes you so wretched.
I have seen everything from Griffith's text elsewhere and found it much easier to follow and comprehend.

>>6570977
Can you tell me what books you found most helpful?

Back on thread topic, I found this in my digital design textbook a while back

my highschool physics textbook had a friction problem about a man in a chicken suit sliding down the third base line in a baseball game that i found pretty funny

>>6570793
I would love to see you try to read an actual math text book.

>>6570989
College math and physics textbooks, in general, are useless shit, and aren't written to be readable, but to be complete and rigorous.

They don't really serve any purpose, except to satisfy some vague feeling that you should have a book which technically contains everything you're supposed to learn, regardless of whether it's in a usable form.

Course notes, on the other hand, are often all you need to actually learn the subject by private study. Yet you either get these photocopied, or the professor writes them up on the board, and you have to copy them down, instead of having them properly bound in a nice, durable book.

>>6570985
I could, but I won't (it's quite a wide range of sources)

If you're asking for your own personal enrichment or for your learning - I would suggest asking your professor/adviser/other professors for some recommendations.

>>6570995
Dick move.

>>6570994
This is pretty fucking accurate, except in those rare cases where you actually get an amazing textbook that actually contains good enough explanations and material to learn the subject matter.

>>6570994
>College math and physics textbooks, in general, are useless shit
Maybe if you make no effort to understand what you're reading, but if you put the time in and do the exercises you can learn a lot from them.

>>6570994
>Course notes, on the other hand, are often all you need to actually learn the subject by private study
Are you not aware that many textbooks started out as course notes?

>>6571025
...and then something horrible happened to them.

>>6570977
I'm sorry, I've been away from /sci/ for a while, is this the new EK or something?

>>6570995
Sure sounds like EK.

>>6570994
>why do we even read books when we have cliffnotes?
Because if you are studying pure science your goal is not just to pass the exam and forget it all, but to actually learn and understand the shit.

>>6571039
>actually learn and understand
...which textbooks don't help with at all.

I'm sorry, but most textbooks are just a fucking joke. They're copies of copies of copies where whatever original sense the original has has long since been lost in the pursuit of some sort of abstract respectability.

>>6570884
agree 100%. Other than that single qualm tho, I find Griffiths to be a good text.

>>6570937
unless you are doing theoretical physics with regards to cosmology, you dont need much more than calculus and advanced statistics.

>>6570989
ive yet to need the level of rigour used in such texts, and as such it is just an impediment. without the need, i dont waste my time learning it, either.

>>6571056
and linear algebra, of course..

>>6570936
Crack open Jackson and tell me Griffiths was too hard

>>6570928
You're giving them WAY too much credit. The way they are wording it, "eliminating the need for mathematicians!", makes it clear they mean any proofs.

>>6571056
>unless you are doing theoretical physics with regards to cosmology, you dont need much more than calculus and advanced statistics.

your dumb ass is still here?

>>6570586
I think it's a really good introduction, personally I quite like Greiner as well. I'd say it was at a level above (slightly) Griffiths, but is in many ways better if not a little dry and, in my opinion weirdly laid out (for example splitting the mathematics section up into I think 4 different sections, scattered throughout the book).

>>6570121

>>6571056
>unless you are doing theoretical physics with regards to cosmology, you dont need much more than calculus and advanced statistics.
high-schooler detected.

Even classical, non-relativistic mechanics requires more than this.

>>6571191
lol no it doesnt. ive got a B.Sc. in engineering physics and a M.Sc. in nanotech.

hard to believe this hasn't been posted yet. I giggle evry tim

>>6570179
>>Concrete Mathematics
could you offer a better explanation?

inb4 can't be fucked to explain it in this thread

>>6570137
The Organisation isn't capable of reverse image searching?

>>6571213
wrong book?

>>6571231
It's a preface to all the math in computer science, namely Donald Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming series. Both are used as text books in college courses around the world.

>>6571207
And I've got a BSc in mechanical engineering and started my Masters in Dynamics and Control theory and it does.

>>6571213
>mfw I got that joke two weeks after buying the text

>>6571241
I have this book, the cover is great.

>>6571658
I got a textbook called Basic Complex Analysis.
Didn't get it til a couple years later

>>6570126
HOLY SHIT! That was in my high school chem textbook. We had a good laugh. Did you go to school in Alberta?

I had an ochem textbook that said in the preface something along the lines of

"A lot of students say that organic chemistry is extremely difficult. This is not true. These students are usually very lazy."

>>6570116
Of course the psych text book has to keep their jokes at a 4th grade level.

>>6571400
>It's a preface to all the math in computer science

i.e. no math whatsoever

>>6571769
There's math in it bro, it has a sigma on the cover

Linear algebra textbook lolz

>>6570066
Not /sci/ related, but back in highschool, my AP US History book had a sentence that read, "Many slaves mistook the idea of freedom, thinking they never had to work again."

>>6570143
>>6571812

>>6570854
LOL

>>6571039
>Because if you are studying pure science your goal is not just to pass the exam and forget it all, but to actually learn and understand the shit.

>hmm you were able to pass high school and get into college
>so I must assume you are a phD candidate and are going to read proofs religiously

Why do this? What is the purpose of making textbooks completely useless to 90% of college students? To satisfy your ego that "hey, I'm REALLY learning here with this textbook"?

>>6571056

Griffiths tends to be middle of the road in the rigorous versus breadth category. Mostly because Quantum Mechanics, for physicists, is a very broad subject.

EVERYTHING is QM now, and if you want more in depth or more breadth or whatever, there are COURSES you take for that afterwards (sort of similar to how first year general physics courses work).

Your alternatives for Griffiths in EM are like Jackson. And for QM it's Dirac. Both of those are easily graduate level texts mostly for theorists. Experimentalists will almost never have a good "course" for their research. They are usually learning it on the fly. Coding and error analysis at the end of the day is more significant to them.

>>6571776
>CS major definition of advance math is a for loop sum

Like I said, no math whatsoever

>>6571850
>rigorous versus breadth
What the hell? Since when are rigor and breadth of a textbook mutually exclusive?

>>6571870

It is seriously nothing short of profound arrogance to think an entire branch of physics can be fit into a single textbook.

Classes attempt to cover most of what they can in the time they are allotted.

If you want breadth, then get a subscription to Phys Review Letters or Nature starting and start going through articles from 1970.

bump

>>6570997
True, but I was briefly glancing through this board while at work.
Some examples though - a Harvard Press text for "Physics of Wave Motion" more thoroughly and clearly (and in just as much rigor) explained the wave nature and dynamics of electricity, magnetism, and light.
It also briefly touched on their interactions with matter.
In a course on electricity and magnetism I took for my engineering minor, the professor provided us with all electronic copies of texts or excerpts from texts. Much of that was very good in conveying and working out radiation, magnetic interactions, electrical interactions, and devices use of electricity and magnetism.

Then a couple grad materials engineering courses I took more thoroughly explained electricity and materials, and magnetism and materials - "Magnetism and magnetic materials" with a text by the same name from a Jiles. Then "Electronic properties of materials" with texts from Hummel and Jiles (both with the same/very similar title)

>>6570095
>good contact

>>6570159
2scary4/sci/ m8
b&

>>6570793
>Griffiths is an asshole who fills his books with phrases like 'clearly' or 'obviously' or 'the solution is trivial and left to the reader'.
Literally every professor writing a book does this, most pretentious fucks on the planet.

>>6570994
Thiss. If they were understandable then going to lectures would be pointless; just read the book.

>>6570995
Nice dodge.I bet you didn't even actually learn eletrodynamics

My old geometry book played around with text alignment for the definitions of translation, reflection, and rotation. My Euro History book also had the "now we are all sons of bitches" quote and a picture of the Indian cavalry (riding bicycles) for basically no reason other than their own sakes.

That Geometry textbook also had a sidebar about the Pi bill and my Bio book included the pronunciation of snRNP's, but those weren't really the writers being funny.

I don't care if it was intentional or not.

>>6570884
>Finding Griffiths hard

I bet you didn't even learn a geometric approach to electrodynamics.

>>6576337
oh god, I laughed

>>6570864
doesn't matter

>>6570133
Its a circuit that approximates the capacitance, inductance and resistance of the human body. Why are you on /sci/?

>>6570109
pol vs sci

>>6574197
>solution is trivial and left to the reader
All my fucking hate.
Just why. It's like, I wouldn't be reading the book then, goddammit.
And there is always one of these I get stuck on, fuck.

>>6576990
>Just why
Because if you can't do it, then you're probably too dumb to take the course.

The book is there to give you the fundamental concepts, not spoonfeed you. You should be able to solve the problems on your own.

>>6576996
Yeah, because I can do all problems with no trouble at all.

The books is there to be complete, not having you complete the gaps. It's not the book's jobs to evaluate your knowledge, but the institution where you are a student at(if you are one).

>>6570066
These pair of saggy tits were found out my physics optics text book.

2213

I chuckled the first time I saw this in a University level textbook.

>>6570160
>>6570153
Listen, friend.
If you want to go yell about "reel maths" and "stoopid cee ess", just go to another thread. It's annoying, doesn't accomplish anything, and ruins the mood of a humorous thread.
Please, kindly fuck off, to where you opinions are useful.

>>6577111
That's a very good way of conveying it.

i never found anything funny and i'm glad about it, maybe because i study math in europe

>>6576337
What book is this from?

>>6570864
You're allowed to do it if you place r1=0 in the integral

>>6570066
I have 10 commandments of dynamics at the back of my dynamics book.

Stuff like: "Thou shalt not seek the velocity of a rotating body"

>>6577010
Have you read books where EVERY LAST FUCKING STEP is worked out in painful detail? Dear god kill me now it's so fucking dry.

>>6577224
What if you disagree with a result?
I've thought of writing Spivak a couple times to clarify or correct certain assertions.

>>6577229
You're a very special type of autist that EVERYONE HATES.

>>6570860
>state school student detected

I was too, that guy's an elitist dickhead

>>6570159
Please put a warning next time this shit really freaked me out man

>>6577241
Math is suppose to be exact and rigorous.
If something doesn't follow, it should be examined closely.

>>6576337
I dont get it :c

>>6570137
I believe it was taken by Makise Kurisu

>>6570066

This is from Non-Classical Logic by Graham Priest:

>Granny lived a sedate life until she moved to the tropics and started selling crack for a living

Fucking philosophers.

>>6577660
How did you..?

>>6577674
Okabe Rintarou pls go

>>6577568

>that image

A proof is just an argument that you happen to agree with.

>>6577685
And how many people disagree with Euclid's arguments?

>>6577685
Nope. In most areas of maths, all proofs follow from other proofs, or from axioms/definitions.

>>6577713
Most areas?

>>6577682
My name is not Okabe.

>>6577797
Then I must be John Titor.

>>6577833
Don't be ridiculous, he disappeared years ago.

>>6576337
I'm really glad I came to Caltech, otherwise I'd have no idea why this is funny.

>>6570066
what happened to that banana?

>>6578283
>what happened to that banana?
Steins;Gate-ification.

>>6578290
Why does that happen in the show? I saw the show but I can't remember.

>not same anon

>>6578323
bcuz time travel

This wasn't a science textbook, but my accounting textbook did have a very long and elaborate word problem involving hiding the true cost of environmental damage resulting from improper safety controls on a manufacturing process. It was very dramatic and all, it came out of absolutely nowhere and it wasn't one of those ethical dilemma they thrown in there. it was just "now prepare the misleading budget while ignoring that pesky toxic waste." I traded in the book, though.

>>6571241

I own this book. Guess dinosaurs are cool

>>6579396
my dinosaur book is more cool than your dinosaur book

>>6579410
Shots fired it seems... but how will you handle MULTIPLE EDITIONS

>>6579410
Was that cover put together in MS Paint?

>>6579410
Anyone knows what happened with the anon who wrote this? Did he start a kickstarter like I fucking told him to do?

bump

>>6579396
lol

Taking Soc. class because Freshman, found this in Dalton Conley's "You May Ask Yourself" (5th edition):
>Social Deviance, loosely understood, can be taken to mean any transgression of socially established norms (such as farting in church, or murder).
Dunno why I kek'd so hard, perhaps just the stark contrast

i dont know if it counts but in linear algebra a shape was supposed to be printed. instead, there was only an error message saying the object could not be found. apparently, however checked it prior to printing thought *oh, fuck it, it's not like they read it anyway*

>>6579412
It looks like it's peeling potatoes in the thumbnail, and I laughed at that.

>>6571900
>It is seriously nothing short of profound arrogance to think an entire branch of physics can be fit into a single textbook.
Excuse me. I'll have to show you the old physics book I have, thicker and longer than my goddamn dick.

>>6584604
a leaflet then?

>>6570117
better not forget plastol of you will fucking cry

>>6584763
Minor kek

>>6577248
Haha, is that an actual serious proof or are they just dicking around?

>>6584882
The math is all true but it is still just dicking around.

My AP stat textbook in high school was actually pretty funny. I love when authors fit jokes into the material.

>>6571736
Truer words have never been spoken.

>>6574610
>pi bill

toppest of keks. Had to look that one up.

>>6583336
>farting in church
Actually still a misdemeanor in a few states IIRC

lel

>>6577608

it starts off with (Tits) and the diagram looks like tits

>>6570121
not him, but Concrete Mathematics is a great book with lots of interesting problems. if you're going to flame it, at least give an alternative that's somewhat related.

>hard mode: you can't use Conway's "On Numbers and Games"

>>6570119
not bad

>>6577229
>I've thought of writing Spivak a couple times to clarify or correct certain assertions.
the book is pretty much perfect at this point, are you working from the 1st edition or something?

>>6586408
Is that the whole joke? Why then is the cal tech guy referencing cal tech?

>>6570793
I'm not sure if physics has a notion similar to this, but in math you try to build "maturity" during your undergrad years. Being able to fill in the blanks is a very useful skill when reading papers / monographs.

>>6587734
All discrete math books are flaming shit

>>6570066

Is that gelbana?

>>6588413
No it is not, it is nothing of your concern. Please move along citizen.

I remember a very old question on a paper. It went something along the lines of:

"An alien crash lands in Nevada. While the scientists are preparing the dissection video for the internet, they notice that its DNA is all adenine and thymine, and its proteins have only 15 amino acids, not 20. Propose a mechanism for how this might work."

>>6588592
lel

>>6588583
lol I just found it again, apparently it included:
"and is swiftly whisked away to Area 51"

>>6588583
>>6588607
Well, can you propose a mechanism for this to work?

>>6570066
is that a S;G reference?

>>6588610
Not really. If I recall, I simply formally bullshitted through it. I believe my reasoning was that through convergent evolution, the alien would use the same protein synthesis mechanisms as Earth-life - nearly identical transcription and translation.

Since we have four nucleobases arranged in 3-base codons, there are 4^3 = 64 possible patterns, enough to denote 20 amino acids. The alien has two nucleotides, so 3-base codons cannot possibly work because 2^3 = 8 <15. 4-base codons are preferable; there are 16 possible patterns and this very much eliminates the possibility for repetitions, so the alien's DNA would have less "break points" and less capacity for mutations causing disability.

I think I argued that the shape would still be a double-helix, but that it would prefer Z-DNA instead of B-DNA because the presence of only two possible base pair would make the structure much more conformationally feasible? Not sure.

*I do not endorse this post and accept that it could be the product of an unsound mind

>>6588813
Jesus. I can't believe that this is the next generation of biologists.

Can't believe that no one's posted this yet.

>>6588868

>My sides.

>>6588868
comeday gawld

>>6570102
so he is a thief or is his dad an inconsiderate retard

>>6588868
Ok, I need this author's name

>>6588855
Simple statement of derision followed by nothing to support it. You sir, are an uneducated pleb.

>>6588592
>lefunnyprofessor

>>6579396
>>6579410
>>6579412

artfag and CS major here.
Makes me want to write an algebra book about a dinosaur and his adventures. Might be cool for the nephews.