WOHPAH (The cool links thread!)

[Kajin]

I don't normally speak for others, but in this case I'll make an exception. No one here is interested in overweight Pokemon furry fans. At least I hope not, anyway.

[Edguy]

I don't normally speak for others, but in this case I'll make an exception. No one here is interested in overweight Pokemon furry fans. At least I hope not, anyway.

Rule 34.1: If it exists, someone is turned on by it.

[drachefly]

I'm turned on by triplets...

... of integers which, when taken to a third or higher integer power, sum to zero.


~~~~

By the way, it's not at all rule 34 on MLP, but I did encounter a humorgasm when it was suggested that if SG1 were running today, Teal'c would be a brony, at least a few toss-off lines worth.

[CCC]

I'm turned on by triplets...

... of integers which, when taken to a third or higher integer power, sum to zero.

Aside from the trivial case of zero, zero and zero, that's impossible (assuming that all three are to be raised to the same power). The proof is trivial for even powers (an integer to an even power is always positive), but the odd-numbered case is too long to fit into this post.

If I'm allowed to raise some of them to different integer powers, then I can find examples.

[quantumcat42]

I'm turned on by triplets...

... of integers which, when taken to a third or higher integer power, sum to zero.

Aside from the trivial case of zero, zero and zero, that's impossible (assuming that all three are to be raised to the same power). The proof is trivial for even powers (an integer to an even power is always positive), but the odd-numbered case is too long to fit into this post.

If I'm allowed to raise some of them to different integer powers, then I can find examples.

Technically speaking, it doesn't have to exist to be turned on by it.

[Grillick]

The proof is trivial for even powers (an integer to an even power is always positive), but the odd-numbered case is too long to fit into this post.

Very cute, Pierre. It would have been better if you had said "The proof for the odd-numbered case is marvelous, but this post is too small for it."

[drachefly]

Dangit, I was trimming it down and forgot to require them to be nonzero. I think I had 'distinct' in there, but replaced it with something else. Oh, right. I rephrased it down from 'sets of three integers' to pick up the triplets pun. Set of three would have been unambiguous... at least if we understand sets don't contain duplicates.

[CCC]

I see no reason why a set of three items should not contain duplicates, if it has not been specified as a set of distinct items.

"Distinct integers" or "nonzero integers" would have been unambiguous, though. It'd even work with "nonzero rational numbers".

[Edguy]

I've found out that, even though I'm fairly good at both the english language and math, it's pretty hard when you mix those together!

(I'm Norwegian..)

[LeoChopper]

I see no reason why a set of three items should not contain duplicates, if it has not been specified as a set of distinct items.

Because that's what a set means to mathematicians. Elements are in, or not. They use other words for things that can contain duplicates, like "triplet".

[Steave]

Science explained by dots.

[Zillatain]

Perspective is the ____

...and the site won't let me put the URL without it altering it to "poop". Okay then.

http://perspective.isthe (put s-word here) .net/

Disclaimer: Contains the s-word in URL and page.

[vampirebunbun]

http://www.necessarygames.com/my-games/loneliness/flash

Interesting little thing.

[rmharman]

Somebody's been giving contracts to Dr. Schlock.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1gcwTXm7oE

[AlternateTorg]

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you The Red Hot Chili Pipers.