XD

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Can you guess what book I am reading? :)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

There's not enough specificity (or at least I don't recognise it) to make a firm educated guess, so I'll stick to The Reason's Proper Study - as it made you want to read it. :>

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

No, I meant, the subject of the book that has all these references in Bibliography xD
Whatever. The "Reason's Proper Study" sounds good indeed.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I would guess the subject being either some more advanced treatise on this or that branch of mathematical logic, or... well, the guesses certainly converge around mathematical logic. Surprise me.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Not very advanced, actually. "An Introduction to Godel's Theorems" by Peter Smith.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

The Kruskal's theorem and other mentions of trees, while not particularly advanced as such, in conjunction with the general theme of logic were what upped my anticipation. Still... is it good?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Looks good, yes (only started yesterday). I actually read another book on the same subject a few years ago (by Podnieks, he distributed free copies to the students) and it kinda sucked compared to this.

Anyway, did you read my story about mind-swapping? :)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Will check it out. The story, did read it just now, and it's indeed nice, both the theme and the execution, especially some of the little details like compatibility testing for 'synaptic group' or the pleasantly subtle mention of ecclesiastical rule. Gz. :>

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Thanks.
Two other persons were "pleasantly surprised" by the eyebrow and tape business. Perverted minds, eh? :D

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Heh. Aren't we all.

For one, such scenes usually translate to somewhat off-the-tangent moments within the larger scheme of the narration, and this, combined with how easily they produce their imagery in the reader's mind, contribute to their noticeability/memorability (which, in turn, correlate well with first existing formalisms of curiosity, novelty and "interestingness").

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Nezināju, ka ''look, i can into engrish'' vēl arvien skaitās stilīga nodarbe priekš provinciālajiem latvju bāliņiem. Fuck you and your fucking kārklu kosmopolītismu. Vai arī laiks sākt pāriet uz svahili.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Vai Tu proti svahili? Es neprotu, bet gribētos pieņemt, ka Tu nepiedāvātu neko tādu, kam pats nespētu turēt līdzi. Un - Engrish? Tiešām?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Nē nu svahili es piedāvāju piemēra pēc. Ja jau kosmopolitizēties, tad līdz galam, nevis vienkārši nomainīt vienu nacionālo identitāti pret citu. Tā kā es neesmu kosmopolīts, tad dabiski, nevaru kalpot par paraugu, kam sekot.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

1) Pēc datora pārinstalēšanas, kad slinkums meklēt likt LV valodu, pieklājīgāk liekas rakstīt angliski, nevis translitā.
2) Gan jau mb arī nav īpašas strapības, kādā no šīm divām valodām sazināties.

Jauku dienu arī tev :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Kosmopolītisms taču nenozīmē saziņu visās pasaules valodās - tik daudz taču vajadzētu būt pašsaprotamam. Principā, tas vismaz netieši implicē tiekšanos pēc universālas valodas, kura eksistētu paralēli lokālajām kā lingvistisko barjeru pārvarēšanas līdzeklis; angļu valoda gan nevar pretendēt uz šādu statusu, taču, manuprāt, tā ir visuresoša un vispārzināma pietiekami lielā mērā, lai tās lietošanu nevarētu ar vieglu roku apzīmēt kā "vienkārši pārslēgšanos uz citu nacionālo identitāti".

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Izņemot tad, kad to bez jebkādas vajadzības lieto divi cilvēki, kuriem ir kopīga cita dzimtā valoda un kuru angļu valodas pārvaldīšana nebūt nav izcila. Ok, RavenX made up an excuse, got outta jail. Priecīgus Jāņus!

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Ne mazāk dīvains ir fakts, ka tu nāc svešā blogā un māci tur, kā pareizi rakstīt. Kas atticecas uz izciliību, tad man vispār nav skaidrs, kā par to kāds var spriest pēc šādas sarakstes. Jebkurā gadījumā, tīri statistiski "izcili" ir augšējie n procenti valodas lietotāju, kamēr matemātiski lielākā daļa ir, ak šausmas, vidusmēra. Vai kādam vajag aizliegt runāt tāpēc, ka viņš nav Šekspīrs? Phe.

Par nesaistītu tēmu - meilu lasi? Uzrakstīju uz to, kas ir profilā.

(Reply to this) (Parent)