..."Come to Butt-head, baby"
The proof:
Compile the following:
#include <stdio.h>
main()
{
for(int i = 0; i < 10000; i++)
{
printf("Come to Butt-head, baby.\n
press any key to continue\n")
getc();
}
}Now run it, notice that you keep laughing no matter how many times you have read it. Therefore it is the absolute best quote.
-DSY
Just thought I'd add my .02 dollars:
In article [email] writes:
It would, since he is using 'or' to mean "Beavis or Butthead, but not both." English sucks because "or" is ambiguous that way.
I think that it is safe to assume, since each set contains only one element which is not equal to the element in the other set, that the two sets are mutually exclusive, ruling out the case of items common across the two. I didn't include a full proof because it's really an easy statement to understand, but a bitch to prove. But you are correct in saying that "the intersection of Beavis and Butthead" is not right. For the sets hold no elements in common (as was loosely shown above), so the intersection would be the empty set, and we all know that B&B are not nothing.
It must, since every set is a subset of itself. And since the set of all things that suck is an element of the set of all sets (S) it must be a subset of itself. Therefore, it includes itself. Once again, easy to understand, a bitch to prove.
Matt Lillegard UW-Madison
"The streets will flow with the blood of the non-believers!" -Beavis
*When I grow up I want to be either an enlightened despot or a repoman.*
Well, I think you are correct here, but I think possibly the original intent here was to show that the show only shows Beavis AND Butt-Head, so it the intersection of the time-space coordinates of Beavis with the time-space coordinates of Butt-head (well, more or less, since they don't actually occupy the exact same time-space but are merely proximate). Anyhow, sometimes only Beavis is shown for part of an episode and sometimes only Butt-head. Hmm... This is far too complicated. I think we need some general relativity to explain this.
Perry "Huh huh. He said 'sets'"
In article [email] (Perry Friedman) writes:>From: [email] (Perry Friedman)
Intersection approximations and general relativity may be applicable in physics, but in set theory, there is no approximation. We are talking about pure math, not that bastardized "good enough" math that physicists apply when they can't get an exact answer. (No offense intended if you are a physicist.) Do you think that Beavis would use an approximation? Well, maybe he would, but that's not the point. Hell, Beavis can't even spell "approximation."
Matt Lillegard UW-Madison
"The streets will flow with the blood of the non-believers!" -Beavis
*When I grow up I want to be either an enlightened despot or a repoman.*
Hellie von Trinkett pompously wrote:
First of all, it is stupid to ASSUME that people mean something other than what is obvious, so I don't care what Davidson says about charity. Charity sucks. Secondly, your post seems to have strayed from the topic of B&B. It is no longer even related to the subject. Sure, you can say that neither is this post, but that would be true only as a technicality - which you seem to thrive on. So, why don't you get off your pedestal and get off my back?
Matt Lillegard UW-Madison
"The streets will flow with the blood of the non-believers!" -Beavis
*When I grow up I want to be either an enlightened despot or a repoman.*
In article (Matthew Allen Lillegard) approaches hysteria
Aw, gee -- Lillegard tries to get technical, and when he's called on it, he starts throwing flames.
In article Jim Carr writes:
In article [email] (Hellie von Trinkett) writes:
--snip--
Well, those Bon Jovi elements would, like, suck more than the word 'suck' can describe. And those, umm, Carpenters song elements would, like, suck even more. Nonetheless, it occurs to me that the set of all things that suck would be, like, a pretty cool thing to see. So, it couldn't contain itself. But if it contained all things that suck, then it seems like it really should suck.
This is, like, one of those incompleteness things or something. Heh heh, mmm, heh umm heh.
Evil Mike
In article [email] writes:
That really sucked.
"Stop, in the name of all that which does not suck!"
In article [email] (Gary Gambino Sr.) writes:
Oh yeah, ummm, sorry 'bout that. Heh heh.