| It's story time... It wasn’t a society of inequality. Each played a pivotal role in the success of the civilization. Some may have been favored over others, as they were regarded as easier to manipulate, or more simple to handle. But when did that ever make anyone more appealing? Perhaps to the weak, who shy away from complications to the safety of someone even weaker, who they can more easily control. Perhaps weak members such as those involved in a mechanically memorized times table? Or perhaps those involved in a log that is always evaluated using a base of ten or e, though they are all so easily converted by the change of base formula from a complicated, yet fascinating and brazen young vixen such as the base of 7.31. Well, our calculators couldn’t handle such wild, untamable beings, so why not tame the shrew? This society resembled ours more closely than initially understood, though it was the functional inverse of all we deem ‘normal.’ But if even one component were suddenly removed from civilization, the equations would be rendered useless. Nothing would function. The world would end. Their native language, the language of precision, was spoken by all yet understood by few. Some spoke this language completely unaware, not realizing how integral this language was in their daily lives. Would words mean anything if this language did not exist? And I’m not talking about the digital numerical symbols we robotically type into our TI-89s. I mean without the very ‘existence’ of this language that so many people hate, and don’t even realize they speak. Sexuality can never be dispelled from any functional society, especially a society with such hot, chiseled graphs and sexy curves, whether they are parabolic, logarithmic, positively or negatively sloping. But these curves present a problem of their own. To figure out the area of a flat surface (a simple, uncomplicated, average woman?), simple multiplication will do. But to know what’s beneath the surface of your item of interest, who is more volatile, whose personality has more peaks and troughs and everything in between, (i.e. the area beneath the curve) simple multiplication will not do. You must know how to integrate…any calculus teacher can tell you that. So for all the inconsistently sloping, volatile functions, who cannot be figured out without integrating or finding derivatives (and by derivatives I don’t mean just to measure the slope of their curves), and whose facets cannot be reduced to a base of ten or e through a formula society concocted to ‘simplify you,’ (change of base formula) I say forget about these simple, unevolved mathematicians who are looking for “2 + c = 4” type of women. A worthy mathematician will be equipped with the tools to handle the more complex equations. in defense of the men who havn't emotionally passed algebra 1, there is nothing wrong with "2 + c = 4" type of women (perhaps i am one myself), or men for that matter. In fact, simplicity is great. It takes all kinds i guess. (the answer is 2 btw).  New Years in DC  
 
 
gettin dowwn... |
