Dan Weston writes:
I find the mathematics is more accurate on
http://www.conservapedia.com
Their facts get checked by the Almighty Himself! ;)
Since decent people here pointed out how my sarcasm may be blessing and
useless, I must ask (living so far from the Bible Belt that I miss all
standard American connotations...)
Are you serious?
(Not about the checking by the Lord, but concerning the quality of that
conservapathologia?)
My favourite citation, (apart from such obvious and meaningful things,
as underlining the fact that Stalin appreciated Darwin, and now you know
what to think about...) is the definition of "point" in "geometry" as
an infinitely small dot.
If you are not satisfied, you go "point itself,
and you read that "A point can be represented on paper by a dot; however
the dot is not a point, but only represents it. Because the actual dot
contains millions of molecules of ink and other substances, whereas the
point exists as an abstraction only."
And you can die happy.
===
Jerzy Karczmarczuk
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
