i can't get enough of it! i frequently visit several math forums just to see if it's a problem i can solve.
I've taken courses from calculus 3 to complex analysis. my personal favorite subject is number theory however.
something about having such a strong relationship between all integers makes me warm and fuzzy inside.
anyone else here?
:(
Not among one of my favourite subjects, but I don't hate it. I'm really not any good with numbers though.
I like math, but not enough to frequently seek out mathematical problems that need my computing power.
I was always good at maths. I like to solve puzzles.
If I had my wits about me when I was younger I would have gotten into serious cosmology.
Okay, I have a problem for you lot to solve.
I want you to take the standard Drake Equation and have it produce additional outputs, rather than just the one it does at the moment. The existing output remains untouched. The additional output(s) are as follows, the average distance between the civilizations. The probability of one of those civilisations being within 10, 20, 40, 80 and 160 light years of Earth.
Please state your model of the Milkey Way i.e. diameter, thickness, star density variation etc.
There is you mission, should you choose to accept it ;D
Quote from: Tank on September 20, 2011, 07:46:32 AM
There is you mission, should you choose to accept it ;D
Too much trouble :P
But I has one too: x^x=27. Without guessing the answer, can this equasion be solved?
Quote from: Asmodean on September 20, 2011, 08:09:42 AM
Quote from: Tank on September 20, 2011, 07:46:32 AM
There is you mission, should you choose to accept it ;D
Too much trouble :P
But I has one too: x^x=27. Without guessing the answer, can this equasion be solved?
very easy, I didn't even have to think about it.
How about he^2 = she
Quote from: Stevil on September 20, 2011, 08:48:40 AM
Quote from: Asmodean on September 20, 2011, 08:09:42 AM
Quote from: Tank on September 20, 2011, 07:46:32 AM
There is you mission, should you choose to accept it ;D
Too much trouble :P
But I has one too: x^x=27. Without guessing the answer, can this equasion be solved?
very easy, I didn't even have to think about it.
How about he^2 = she
Try again :P
Quote from: Asmodean on September 20, 2011, 08:56:37 AM
Quote from: Stevil on September 20, 2011, 08:48:40 AM
Quote from: Asmodean on September 20, 2011, 08:09:42 AM
Quote from: Tank on September 20, 2011, 07:46:32 AM
There is you mission, should you choose to accept it ;D
Too much trouble :P
But I has one too: x^x=27. Without guessing the answer, can this equasion be solved?
very easy, I didn't even have to think about it.
How about he^2 = she
Try again :P
I know the answer. it wasn't rocket science. But are you wanting me to develop a mathematical equation that will solve all of these types of questions?
e.g.
x^x=1
x^x=4
x^x=27
x^x=256
x^x=3125
My method was simple, I did however make an assumption that you were using integers. (well actually, not really an assumption. You can't have two decimal numbers multiply against each other and get a whole number, you always end up with a decimal)
I knew x had to be small, 4 was definitely too big. I knew this through experience. 1 and 2 were too small. I knew this too. Actually, I simply knew the answer was 3. It wasn't a guess. I had seen 3 x 9 before and I had recognized that 9 is 3 x 3. So I had an understanding, instant recall that 3^3 = 27.
Given that 27 I an odd number then x must have been an odd number too, otherwise the result would have been an even number. Given that 27 is an odd positive number it means that x must have been a positive number otherwise the result would have been a negative number. There was only ever one option on what x could be. It wasn't a guess.
Another way of working it out is to find out what whole numbers can 27 be divided by without giving a remainder. 1 is silly to divide by. 2 and 4 don't work because 27 is an odd number. Going higher than 4 is silly because I already know that 4^4 is > 27. 3 fits like a glove. 27/3 is 9 is 3^2, so is perfect.
I wouldn't consider it a guess, although I did not use a mathematical formula to work out the answer, I did however use my experience, and common sense and quick elimination to find the answer which I could validate by running it through your formula. I couldn't apply my method to formula where x is not an integer number though.
Quote from: Stevil on September 20, 2011, 10:43:09 AM
My method was simple, I did however make an assumption that you were using integers. (well actually, not really an assumption. You can't have two decimal numbers multiply against each other and get a whole number, you always end up with a decimal)
I knew x had to be small, 4 was definitely too big. I knew this through experience. 1 and 2 were too small. I knew this too. Actually, I simply knew the answer was 3. It wasn't a guess. I had seen 3 x 9 before and I had recognized that 9 is 3 x 3. So I had an understanding, instant recall that 3^3 = 27.
Given that 27 I an odd number then x must have been an odd number too, otherwise the result would have been an even number. Given that 27 is an odd positive number it means that x must have been a positive number otherwise the result would have been a negative number. There was only ever one option on what x could be. It wasn't a guess.
Another way of working it out is to find out what whole numbers can 27 be divided by without giving a remainder. 1 is silly to divide by. 2 and 4 don't work because 27 is an odd number. Going higher than 4 is silly because I already know that 4^4 is > 27. 3 fits like a glove. 27/3 is 9 is 3^2, so is perfect.
I wouldn't consider it a guess, although I did not use a mathematical formula to work out the answer, I did however use my experience, and common sense and quick elimination to find the answer which I could validate by running it through your formula. I couldn't apply my method to formula where x is not an integer number though.
I did use a simple equasion, but yes, I am actually looking for a solution to x^x=a, where a is defined within R
yep, I like math's, especially integration techniques.
Solving the surface or volume of objects like apples or pears with the x,y and z-axis in a graphic way
is a nice exercise.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.ebaumsworld.com%2Fpicture%2Fstar4ucker%2Fsimplicity.jpg&hash=0440fdb8c00b1fdb47ffc0a04ba2ab44c747c41d)
x^x = a take the log of both sides.
x*log x = log a
x*log x -log a = 0
from there, the best way would be to use newton's method.
let x0 be your initail guess.
then... x1 = x0 -(x0*log x0 -log a)/(log x0 +1)
keep on plugging in the answer untill you get a sufficently close result.
technically this is a guess and check method, but it's an algorithm that will work with any number, a, wether integer or decimal.
edited: i like the above equatino better, it converges much much faster.
Quote from: phillip1882 on September 21, 2011, 03:52:43 PM
x^x = a
perhaps the best way would be to use newton's method.
let x0 be your initail guess.
then... x1 = x0 -(x0^x0 -a)/(x0^x0 *ln x0 +x0^x0)
keep on plugging in the answer untill you get a sufficently close result.
technically this is a guess and check method, but it's an algorithm that will work with any number, a, wether integer or decimal.
Nice! Except for the guesswork needed, I like it.
Quote
Okay, I have a problem for you lot to solve.
I want you to take the standard Drake Equation and have it produce additional outputs, rather than just the one it does at the moment. The existing output remains untouched. The additional output(s) are as follows, the average distance between the civilizations. The probability of one of those civilisations being within 10, 20, 40, 80 and 160 light years of Earth.
Please state your model of the Milkey Way i.e. diameter, thickness, star density variation etc.
sure, that's simple enough
N = star dencity* distance^3 /number that have planets /number of planets that support life / number of life planets that support intellegent life
there are roughly 400,000,000,000 stars, and the milky way is roughly 100,000 light years across, and 1,000 light years thick.
so 400 stars per light year, aproximately, is our star dencity. the rest is up for grabs.
Quote from: phillip1882 on September 21, 2011, 06:10:27 PM
Quote
Okay, I have a problem for you lot to solve.
I want you to take the standard Drake Equation and have it produce additional outputs, rather than just the one it does at the moment. The existing output remains untouched. The additional output(s) are as follows, the average distance between the civilizations. The probability of one of those civilisations being within 10, 20, 40, 80 and 160 light years of Earth.
Please state your model of the Milkey Way i.e. diameter, thickness, star density variation etc.
sure, that's simple enough
N = star dencity* distance^3 /number that have planets /number of planets that support life / number of life planets that support intellegent life
there are roughly 400,000,000,000 stars, and the milky way is roughly 100,000 light years across, and 1,000 light years thick.
so 400 stars per light year, aproximately, is our star dencity. the rest is up for grabs.
400 stars per light year, surely not. apart from our sun, how close is the closest star to us?
Oh, by the way, anyone going to have a go at my one.
he^2=she
each letter represents a single digit of a number so he is one number, not h X e but more like h X 10 + e and she is s * 100 + h * 10 + e
This problem is not too hard and is solvable for anyone interested.
it was just a rough estimate. if you use the volume of an ellipsoid, 4/3 *pi*a*b*c, star density is closer to 95 stars per light year.
to answer your question, there are 5 stars within 5 light years of us; but there are parts of our galaxy where star density is much more.
he^2 = she.
he = 25.
Quote from: phillip1882 on September 21, 2011, 08:19:30 PM
it was just a rough estimate. if you use the volume of an ellipsoid, 4/3 *pi*a*b*c, star density is closer to 95 stars per light year.
to answer your question, there are 5 stars within 5 light years of us; but there are parts of our galaxy where star density is much more.
he^2 = she.
he = 25.
Is it more likely that life is on the outer edge of a galaxy rather than the inner?
Other than the sun our closest star is over 4 light years away, it would be pretty bright to have 100 stars only 1 light year away. Maybe the dense parts of the galaxy cannot support life?
You got the answer to mine. Too easy huh? s = 6 btw, but you already know that.
you know now that i look at it, my calculation may be entirely wrong.
i was thinking length times depth = volume for some reason, but there's also breadth, of course!
so, my now official estimate of star density; 400,000,000,000/(4/3*pi*50000*50000*500) = .07 stars per light year^3. this seems much more reasonable. at a distance of 5 light years, this gives 125*.07 = 8.75 stars.
Quote from: phillip1882 on September 22, 2011, 02:09:44 AM
you know now that i look at it, my calculation may be entirely wrong.
i was thinking length times depth = volume for some reason, but there's also breadth, of course!
so, my now official estimate of star density; 400,000,000,000/(4/3*pi*50000*50000*500) = .07 stars per light year^3. this seems much more reasonable. at a distance of 5 light years, this gives 125*.07 = 8.75 stars.
It's always good to validate against some real known measurements otherwise it is too easy to make mistakes or go off into wild tangents. Religious theories don't have this luxury though.
Quote from: phillip1882 on September 22, 2011, 02:09:44 AM
you know now that i look at it, my calculation may be entirely wrong.
i was thinking length times depth = volume for some reason, but there's also breadth, of course!
so, my now official estimate of star density; 400,000,000,000/(4/3*pi*50000*50000*500) = .07 stars per light year^3. this seems much more reasonable. at a distance of 5 light years, this gives 125*.07 = 8.75 stars.
Is that 8.75 stars per cubic light year?
no, that's 8.75 for every 5 cubic light years, 0.7 for every cubic light year.
Quote from: phillip1882 on September 22, 2011, 01:56:39 PM
no, that's 8.75 for every 5 cubic light years, 0.7 for every cubic light year.
??? 8.75/5=1.75 & 5/8.75=0.57 I am confused.
CUBIC light years. 8.75/5^3 = .07
that is: if you go 5 light years in any direction, you'll run into 8.75 stars.
if you go 1 light year, .07 stars.
wait, now i'm confused, should i have stated 8.75 stars for 125 cubic light years??
:-[
i think so.
Quote from: phillip1882 on September 22, 2011, 05:32:16 PM
wait, now i'm confused, should i have stated 8.75 stars for 125 cubic light years??
:-[
i think so.
But then earth, being at the edge of the galaxy is in an unusually dense part of the galaxy?
Quote from: Stevil on September 22, 2011, 07:57:29 PM
Quote from: phillip1882 on September 22, 2011, 05:32:16 PM
wait, now i'm confused, should i have stated 8.75 stars for 125 cubic light years??
:-[
i think so.
But then earth, being at the edge of the galaxy is in an unusually dense part of the galaxy?
Dense? I would have said rarified.
I am falling out of love with maths ;D
Quote from: Tank on September 22, 2011, 08:27:37 PM
Quote from: Stevil on September 22, 2011, 07:57:29 PM
Quote from: phillip1882 on September 22, 2011, 05:32:16 PM
wait, now i'm confused, should i have stated 8.75 stars for 125 cubic light years??
:-[
i think so.
But then earth, being at the edge of the galaxy is in an unusually dense part of the galaxy?
Dense? I would have said rarified.
Well yes, that's the point. We have about 42 stars within about 15 light years or earth, this represents a sphere with radius 15 light years which is smaller that 30 cubic light years., this is much more dense thn 8.75 stars per 125 cubic light years. Phillip was right to suggest that 5x5x5 = 5 light years cubed rather than 125.
Quote from: Stevil on September 23, 2011, 01:00:22 PM
Quote from: Tank on September 22, 2011, 08:27:37 PM
Quote from: Stevil on September 22, 2011, 07:57:29 PM
Quote from: phillip1882 on September 22, 2011, 05:32:16 PM
wait, now i'm confused, should i have stated 8.75 stars for 125 cubic light years??
:-[
i think so.
But then earth, being at the edge of the galaxy is in an unusually dense part of the galaxy?
Dense? I would have said rarified.
Well yes, that's the point. We have about 42 stars within about 15 light years or earth, this represents a sphere with radius 15 light years which is smaller that 30 cubic light years., this is much more dense thn 8.75 stars per 125 cubic light years. Phillip was right to suggest that 5x5x5 = 5 light years cubed rather than 125.
Converting from 5^3 as representative of a cube to 125 as representative of a line, one needs to change their perspective of what it means. It no longer means stars in 3D space, it means stars in 1D space. Also keep in mind that it was a mean average, not a rule (some places will be more and less dense).
I'm an Accountant so I love Math. ;D
Quote from: phillip1882 on September 20, 2011, 01:08:52 AM
i can't get enough of it! i frequently visit several math forums just to see if it's a problem i can solve.
I've taken courses from calculus 3 to complex analysis. my personal favorite subject is number theory however.
something about having such a strong relationship between all integers makes me warm and fuzzy inside.
anyone else here?
There are many reasons to value mathematics. Here is my favorite.
In mathematics, if you owe three people $10, then you are negative $30 (3 X -10 = $-30). If the lenders then say, "We forgive you for this debt because we love you," then you are free from that debt by another negative. You have just had three subtractions of -10, making you three positives of $10 (-3 X -$10). Your debt is -30 + 30 = Zero.
It is interesting to me that negative debt must be walked back by another negative. For me, this has metaphysical implications. I will save this for later. POST 4
Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 01:17:52 AM
Quote from: phillip1882 on September 20, 2011, 01:08:52 AM
i can't get enough of it! i frequently visit several math forums just to see if it's a problem i can solve.
I've taken courses from calculus 3 to complex analysis. my personal favorite subject is number theory however.
something about having such a strong relationship between all integers makes me warm and fuzzy inside.
anyone else here?
There are many reasons to value mathematics. Here is my favorite.
In mathematics, if you owe three people $10, then you are negative $30 (3 X -10 = $-30). If the lenders then say, "We forgive you for this debt because we love you," then you are free from that debt by another negative. You have just had three subtractions of -10, making you three positives of $10 (-3 X -$10). Your debt is -30 + 30 = Zero.
It is interesting to me that negative debt must be walked back by another negative. For me, this has metaphysical implications. I will save this for later. POST 4
Huh?
If Jesus has already paid all the debts of all my sins before I commit them does that mean I am free to rape and pillage just like god instructed Moses to do?
Quote from: Stevil on September 26, 2011, 07:10:52 AM
If Jesus has already paid all the debts of all my sins before I commit them does that mean I am free to rape and pillage just like god instructed Moses to do?
Also, enslave, torture and preach to while at it. :D
Quote from: Asmodean on September 26, 2011, 10:58:21 AM
Quote from: Stevil on September 26, 2011, 07:10:52 AM
If Jesus has already paid all the debts of all my sins before I commit them does that mean I am free to rape and pillage just like god instructed Moses to do?
Also, enslave, torture and preach to while at it. :D
Crazy Jesus Math means you can do whatever you want! (as long as you believe)
I can see why it would be appealing.
To a humble arts graduate like me, maths like that suggest that someone isn't taking their medication.
I'm an Accountant, so yeah I love math. ;D
Quote from: unholy1971 on September 25, 2011, 11:27:25 PM
I'm an Accountant so I love Math. ;D
Quote from: unholy1971 on December 19, 2011, 04:00:30 AM
I'm an Accountant, so yeah I love math. ;D
I was going to say "dejà vú" but I'm guessing this is this a spot the differences puzzle. ;D
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 19, 2011, 05:15:21 AM
Quote from: unholy1971 on September 25, 2011, 11:27:25 PM
I'm an Accountant so I love Math. ;D
Quote from: unholy1971 on December 19, 2011, 04:00:30 AM
I'm an Accountant, so yeah I love math. ;D
I was going to say "dejà vú" but I'm guessing this is this a spot the differences puzzle. ;D
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatvzone.com%2Fforums%2Fstyle_emoticons%2Fdefault%2Fhmm.gif&hash=172c81f53e3924193aebfb0a35ee89fe73f5a05f) I smell a conspiracy.
Quote from: Asmodean on December 19, 2011, 10:22:25 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 19, 2011, 05:15:21 AM
Quote from: unholy1971 on September 25, 2011, 11:27:25 PM
I'm an Accountant so I love Math. ;D
Quote from: unholy1971 on December 19, 2011, 04:00:30 AM
I'm an Accountant, so yeah I love math. ;D
I was going to say "dejà vú" but I'm guessing this is this a spot the differences puzzle. ;D
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatvzone.com%2Fforums%2Fstyle_emoticons%2Fdefault%2Fhmm.gif&hash=172c81f53e3924193aebfb0a35ee89fe73f5a05f) I smell a conspiracy.
If you notice how unholy1971 first capitalised the first letter of 'math', it obviously shows an accountant's agenda to deify maths, and make us all worship it (:o). He later realised his mistake and reposted a very similar message without capitalizing the first letter hoping to lure us in unawares.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 19, 2011, 12:28:46 PM
If you notice how unholy1971 first capitalised the first letter of 'math', it obviously shows an accountant's agenda to deify maths, and make us all worship it (:o). He later realised his mistake and reposted a very similar message without capitalizing the first letter hoping to lure us in unawares.
See! You see?! The Asmo TOLD you there was something fishy going on. Although the pies, they are about as almighty as it gets. :D
Quote from: Asmodean on December 19, 2011, 12:30:57 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 19, 2011, 12:28:46 PM
If you notice how unholy1971 first capitalised the first letter of 'math', it obviously shows an accountant's agenda to deify maths, and make us all worship it (:o). He later realised his mistake and reposted a very similar message without capitalizing the first letter hoping to lure us in unawares.
See! You see?! The Asmo TOLD you there was something fishy going on. Although the pies, they are about as almighty as it gets. :D
I agree. It's the infinity thing :o
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 19, 2011, 12:44:08 PM
I agree. It's the infinity thing :o
Yes. Where is a photo of O'Reilly when you need one?!
You eat a pi and it's doesn't get shorter! Can't explain that.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 19, 2011, 12:28:46 PM
If you notice how unholy1971 first capitalised the first letter of 'math', it obviously shows an accountant's agenda to deify maths, and make us all worship it (:o). He later realised his mistake and reposted a very similar message without capitalizing the first letter hoping to lure us in unawares.
Hey a bit of respect please, the double entry system is the foundation of modern society, and when the foundation is neglected the whole thing comes tumbling down.
QuoteA: Yes, I discovered that through its power of calculating changes in capital (http://overland.org.au/2011/12/inside-the-mind-of-jane-gleeson-white/), double entry has not only shaped the way we've done business over the last 700 years but has spawned the language of the modern world and is arguably the progenitor of capitalism itself. By 'language of the modern world' I mean the language of Hindu-Arabic numbers denominated in money that governs the global economy. This language is made possible by double entry, through the accounts it generates for corporations and, since the Second World War, through the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) accounts it generates for nations. It gives rise to the cost-benefit calculations that rule our daily lives, from our governments, schools, universities, hospitals and entertainment, to the decisions made by corporations, for example, those made by Coles and Woolworths that govern the way we shop and eat. The language of double entry is now so ubiquitous we struggle to imagine it any other way.
Quote from: Asmodean on December 19, 2011, 12:54:50 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 19, 2011, 12:44:08 PM
I agree. It's the infinity thing :o
Yes. Where is a photo of O'Reilly when you need one?!
You eat a pi and it's doesn't get shorter! Can't explain that.
LOL!
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on December 19, 2011, 01:40:17 PM
Hey a bit of respect please, the double entry system is the foundation of modern society, and when the foundation is neglected the whole thing comes tumbling down.
QuoteA: Yes, I discovered that through its power of calculating changes in capital (http://overland.org.au/2011/12/inside-the-mind-of-jane-gleeson-white/), double entry has not only shaped the way we've done business over the last 700 years but has spawned the language of the modern world and is arguably the progenitor of capitalism itself. By 'language of the modern world' I mean the language of Hindu-Arabic numbers denominated in money that governs the global economy. This language is made possible by double entry, through the accounts it generates for corporations and, since the Second World War, through the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) accounts it generates for nations. It gives rise to the cost-benefit calculations that rule our daily lives, from our governments, schools, universities, hospitals and entertainment, to the decisions made by corporations, for example, those made by Coles and Woolworths that govern the way we shop and eat. The language of double entry is now so ubiquitous we struggle to imagine it any other way.
Um, yes. Of course.
*whispers to Asmo*
I think he's in on it...
[ENGLISH_RANT]
The word is MATHS.
Both the Oxford and the Merriam-Webster dictionaries say the word 'Mathematics' is plural. The shortened form is, therefore "maths", because the word is still a plural noun and so should still have the "s" on the end. You do not say "Who likes Mathematic", do you?
[/ENGLISH_RANT]
Quote from: Scissorlegs on December 19, 2011, 04:23:16 PM
[ENGLISH_RANT]
The word is MATHS.
Both the Oxford and the Merriam-Webster dictionaries say the word 'Mathematics' is plural. The shortened form is, therefore "maths", because the word is still a plural noun and so should still have the "s" on the end. You do not say "Who likes Mathematic", do you?
[/ENGLISH_RANT]
It must drive you crazy when people say they have to go to "the ATM machine" and then input their "PIN number". ;D
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on December 20, 2011, 05:17:28 AM
Quote from: Scissorlegs link=topic=8303.msg141113#msg141113 date=1ji324311796
[ENGLISH_RANT]
The word is MATHS.
Both the Oxford and the Merriam-Webster dictionaries say the word 'Mathematics' is plural. The shortened form is, therefore "maths", because the word is still a plural noun and so should still have the "s" on the end. You do not say "Who likes Mathematic", do you?
[/ENGLISH_RANT]
It must drive you crazy when people say they have to go to "the ATM machine" and then input their "PIN number". ;D
True enough. And another (and let's leave there, their, and they're out of it for now) is 'could of' instead of 'could have'.
Anyway, (and that's not 'anyways' BTW) back to the mathS...
hmm, I like math but I hardly ever pick up my math books just for the fun of it. The thing I notice beneficial about math though, is that, well people might say something like "when am I ever going to use this" and so never get into it. But, it's true that you may never do some complex algebra or calc or something in your day to day life, but I've found that I tend to think more logically at times now then before math. So, it's just excercising that part of the mind, and you never know just where and when that may be helping....
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 19, 2011, 12:28:46 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on December 19, 2011, 10:22:25 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 19, 2011, 05:15:21 AM
Quote from: unholy1971 on September 25, 2011, 11:27:25 PM
I'm an Accountant so I love Math. ;D
Quote from: unholy1971 on December 19, 2011, 04:00:30 AM
I'm an Accountant, so yeah I love math. ;D
I was going to say "dejà vú" but I'm guessing this is this a spot the differences puzzle. ;D
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatvzone.com%2Fforums%2Fstyle_emoticons%2Fdefault%2Fhmm.gif&hash=172c81f53e3924193aebfb0a35ee89fe73f5a05f) I smell a conspiracy.
If you notice how unholy1971 first capitalised the first letter of 'math', it obviously shows an accountant's agenda to deify maths, and make us all worship it (:o). He later realised his mistake and reposted a very similar message without capitalizing the first letter hoping to lure us in unawares.
LMAO :)
Too funny. Forgive a newbee.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on December 20, 2011, 08:48:56 AM
True enough. And another (and let's leave there, their, and they're out of it for now) is 'could of' instead of 'could have'.
Ah, so I should do could 've then?
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on December 22, 2011, 03:18:19 AM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on December 20, 2011, 08:48:56 AM
True enough. And another (and let's leave there, their, and they're out of it for now) is 'could of' instead of 'could have'.
Ah, so I should do could 've then?
Yes, but you should've omitted the space...