Page 2 of 3

### Re: [17-05-2012] Discrizzle

Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 12:51 am
you've put the punchline at the top though

### Re: [17-05-2012] Discrizzle

Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 1:29 am
ice2097 wrote:...seriously? do people not understand venn diagrams? the only use of "for reals" is the INTERSECTION of rap and discrete math?
jesus fucking christ....
If it's in the intersection then it's supposedly in both. Nobody in Discrete Math talks about the reals; they restrict themselves to mostly integers. Maybe "discrete math" should be replaced with "analysis".

### Re: [17-05-2012] Discrizzle

Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 2:03 am
Or...

O .............................. o
You ............................ Sex

### Re: [17-05-2012] Discrizzle

Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 2:23 am
This is relevant to my interests.

All of them.

### Re: [17-05-2012] Discrizzle

Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 3:02 am
Lethal Interjection wrote:Or...

O .............................. o
You ............................ Sex
math is their only partner

### Re: [17-05-2012] Discrizzle

Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 8:13 am
Also, what if frequent use of the term for reals is not the title of the intersection, it's just an item. one of the things rap and discrete mathematics share.

### Re: [17-05-2012] Discrizzle

Posted: Sun May 20, 2012 1:11 am
ice2097 wrote:...seriously? do people not understand venn diagrams? the only use of "for reals" is the INTERSECTION of rap and discrete math?
jesus fucking christ....
The intersection is a representation of all of the attributes the two circles share. Now the question is, because you questioned it, doesn't that mean you don't understand Venn diagrams?

(Although, people have pointed out that "for reals" might not be so common in discrete mathematics as the comic seems to suggest.)

### Re: [17-05-2012] Discrizzle

Posted: Sun May 20, 2012 1:18 am
Well one interpretation of the venn diagram makes him correct, is the thing. Because that one interpretation is that the intersection means raps about discrete mathematics, but the phrase for reals should appear in every section.

However as we have addressed, it depends. Venn diagrams are kind of shit.

### Re: [17-05-2012] Discrizzle

Posted: Sun May 20, 2012 2:46 am
Sandwiches wrote:Well one interpretation of the venn diagram makes him correct, is the thing. Because that one interpretation is that the intersection means raps about discrete mathematics, but the phrase for reals should appear in every section.

However as we have addressed, it depends. Venn diagrams are kind of shit.
Ahh, but he does use the modifier 'frequent'.

I can't believe I'm defending a comic. A graph comic, no less.

### Re: [17-05-2012] Discrizzle

Posted: Sun May 20, 2012 5:18 am
ice2097 wrote:...seriously? do people not understand venn diagrams? the only use of "for reals" is the INTERSECTION of rap and discrete math?
jesus fucking christ....

What he's saying is that the only thing that discrete math and rap have in common is the use of the phrase "for reals"

For reals.

### Re: [17-05-2012] Discrizzle

Posted: Sun May 20, 2012 5:14 pm
ur dumb wrote:
What he's saying is that the only thing that discrete math and rap have in common is the use of the phrase "for reals"

For reals.
But that doesn't make sense. The phrase "for reals" never shows up in discrete math. "Use of for reals" should be pointing to the section inside "rap music" but outside of "discrete math". I'm not sure how Zach missed that.

### Re: [17-05-2012] Discrizzle

Posted: Sun May 20, 2012 6:05 pm
Combinatorialist wrote:The phrase "for reals" never shows up in discrete math.
Oooooh, I feel like I should correct him

but uh yeah I don't know anything. Do you know something? Do you know, for instance, know all discrete maths ever? Zach seemed to act like it appeared in set theory?

Everyone in this thread has been acting like for reals does at least exist in discrete maths, you are an outlier. I don't know if you are the valiant outsider, exposing our hypocrisies and putting us to shame or if you are a weirdo freakazoid who smells weird.

### Re: [17-05-2012] Discrizzle

Posted: Sun May 20, 2012 7:45 pm
Sandwiches wrote:
Oooooh, I feel like I should correct him

but uh yeah I don't know anything. Do you know something? Do you know, for instance, know all discrete maths ever? Zach seemed to act like it appeared in set theory?

Everyone in this thread has been acting like for reals does at least exist in discrete maths, you are an outlier. I don't know if you are the valiant outsider, exposing our hypocrisies and putting us to shame or if you are a weirdo freakazoid who smells weird.
I have a PhD in discrete math, so yeah, I do know a lot about it. Maybe some people have taken a class called "Discrete Math" and talked about the reals, but they don't belong there. Maybe Zach saw set theory, Cantor's Diagonal Proof, something like that in the class. I like the comics and thought it was odd that Zach would make a mistake like that, so I mentioned it to see what other people thought about it. Relax.

### Re: [17-05-2012] Discrizzle

Posted: Sun May 20, 2012 8:28 pm
NO YOU RELAX

### Re: [17-05-2012] Discrizzle

Posted: Sun May 20, 2012 9:51 pm
Combinatorialist wrote:
Sandwiches wrote:
Oooooh, I feel like I should correct him

but uh yeah I don't know anything. Do you know something? Do you know, for instance, know all discrete maths ever? Zach seemed to act like it appeared in set theory?

Everyone in this thread has been acting like for reals does at least exist in discrete maths, you are an outlier. I don't know if you are the valiant outsider, exposing our hypocrisies and putting us to shame or if you are a weirdo freakazoid who smells weird.
I have a PhD in discrete math, so yeah, I do know a lot about it. Maybe some people have taken a class called "Discrete Math" and talked about the reals, but they don't belong there. Maybe Zach saw set theory, Cantor's Diagonal Proof, something like that in the class. I like the comics and thought it was odd that Zach would make a mistake like that, so I mentioned it to see what other people thought about it. Relax.
Yeah... well... I have ultra-double PhD in Unproven Titles, where I wrote my thesis on the use of them in anonymous internet correspondence.