Math related logic problem (nested roots)

Post Reply New Topic

Please do not libel me.

Please restrain yourself to logical arguments.

If you have an issue with my math, please follow my invitation to specifically state which transformation I performed was in error.

If you are unable to do the above, please do not post in any of my threads.

If you would like to ignore me, you can simply not read my posts. It is beginning to appear like that might be the best route for this to take.

If you continue to attempt to derail my conversations with patently false or offensive statements I will contact a moderator regarding your behavior.

Too late, Death_of_Pathos, as I was already here.

Back to the problem...

As I said, I was not happy with the way I defined my c(m,n) anyway, as I'm sure I could have chosen various other ways to attempt to "define" what the real c(m) should be.

The nested square roots give exactly the same sort of problem as you get with continued fractions:

1+1/(1+1/(1+1/(1+....)))

It's easy to say that, if the above is "x", then it should also be "1+1/x". Hence the "x=1+1/x" -> "x^2-x-1=0" -> "x=(1+/-sqrt(5))/2.

I.e. both ϕ and 1-ϕ are good interpretations of the CF, although, with the proviso that only positive values should be considered, the former is the "correct" answer.

=======

Oh... and if you've had a play with Laeqed... you'll note that it offers a rather broader range of stuff than the site you mentioned. I've looked at that site before, and although it is quite nice, it rather relies on that site staying available, for evermore. The Laeqed isea is nice, in that it embeds the LaTeX source in the PNG image, and lets you edit it offline. (NB. My LaTeX skills are minimal!)

Deleted.
You don't deserve to read it.
There's no point in communicating with you on this level.

Last edited by mystyc on 30 Nov 2008, 2:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

(didn't realize you were a moderator, good to know)

Yeah, I had noticed that c(1,1,INF)=ϕ.

I honestly do like how you set up the problem, I had not considered the terminating, err final term. It strikes me as important in the same way that a remainder is while dividing irrational fractions. I just believe that it is implied by means of omission that n=m. (this is based off of my impression of it, I can only assume that such a concept of a last term in an infinite series exists)

Turns out that c(0,-1,INF) gets really messy really quick. It splits into two distinct quantities on the first iteration, and they seem to be converging to 1 and 0 on further iterations.

I will definitely use Laeqed as soon as soon as I get it running. The errors it throws when I try to run it make me think that it doesn't realize that LaTeX is present on my computer, despite me using the MikeTeX 2.7 installer (I use Windows XP). I just got back from a two hour walk and haven't tried to fiddle with it further.

I agree the limitation of that site makes it inferior, as nice as it is. I taught myself LaTeX a couple weeks ago and it was simply the easiest quickest way for me to convey my thoughts.

EDIT: Got Laeqed configured.

Hm. I hadn't.

I just toyed around with a spreadsheet, and curiously, tried displaying c(1,n,j) for a grid, varying n and j. Very interesting, as I made the grid use complex values, so I could see what happened for negative n.
In fact, I even tried complex n.
Whatever I fed in, it seemed to eventually converge on ϕ. Somewhat of a surprise.


There is, indeed, no such concept as the "last term in an infinite series". The original problem sweeps this "under the mat" - and just relies on you making an uninformed (and I mean that - that there is no information given that helps in the slightest to determine what the expression "really" means) guess.

Oh, and I think rather than m=n, in my definition of c(m,n,j), the innermost square root is taken of "m+n", so I guess the "natural" value for n would be zero. As in c(1,9,2)=sqrt(1+sqrt(1+9)). However, this is entirely moot. It appears that convergence is pretty independent of that final term's precise value - it seems to just have an effect when there is a non-stable solution lurking.

Which makes me realise that I could have defined:
c(m,n,0)=n
c(m,n,j+1)=sqrt(m+c(m,n,j))


I'm not sure I understand this one. c(0,0,j) converges to zero. c(o,n,j) converges to 1 for all non-zero complex n (I think, but presupposing that it is OK to always take the principal square roots, although this gets a bit tacky - maybe it warrants further investigation).

sqrt( i ) has two complex roots: and . I might've been overzealous in my use of the word 'distinct'.

Google calculator kindly obliges in resolving further square roots.

Deleted.
You don't deserve to read it.
There's no point in communicating with you on this level.

Last edited by mystyc on 30 Nov 2008, 2:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

The website referenced by Death_of_Pathos does not require you to have LaTeX installed on your machine. The website processes the formulae for you and supplies an image. You will see the LaTeX source embedded in the links he has been posting.

OTOH, editing the Laeqed images I have been posting does require you to have Java and LaTeX available on your machine.



I can't say I quite understand your notation in the following. I guess "P1" is "Proposition 1", but a proposition does not require the "Assume that" part.


I'll assume you are using "sqrt" to mean the principal square root, now. I.e. the non-negative one.
In this case, with your P1 in force, your (1) and (2) are equivalent.


Naturally not, as P1 states that m,c>=0, except for that instance when m and c are both zero.


I don't know what you mean by this. Squaring each side of your equation (3) yields your equation (1). It has nothing to do with P1. Having squared the equation, it now says nothing about the truth or otherwise of P3.


Why "therefore"?


But it does. c=sqrt(m+c) (2)
Substitute m=0 and c=1 -> 1=sqrt(0+1), which is indeed true.
(Ah! The "P" stands for "Premise".)


No we don't. As you have chosen to introduce equation (3), which is only satisfied by m=0 and c=0 (with your other constraints).
Certainly, c=-1 is not permitted by your P1, and with m=0 it certainly does not provide a solution in equation (3). (Hence P3 is true).


Why "thus"? For equations (1) and (2), m=0 yields c = 0 or 1. The value pair m=0,c=1 does not satisfy (3), hence implies P3 is true. The value pair m=0,c=0 makes (3) true, hence P3 false. In the context of P1, P3 is essentially just a red herring. Insisting that P3 is true just arbitrarily eliminates the m=0,c=0 solution.


I did. I have no idea what your point is.


Why should we do that?


I have no idea who Ben Stein might be, or who/what Bueller is.
I don't know why you have stipulated that both (2) and (3) are true simultaneously.


Although the original question was couched in terms of integers, I don't believe anyone else was restricting them to positive or non-negative. I chose to consider the problem with all values permitted to be complex. It's usually much more informative to generalise the problem, when the restrictive integer cases become easier to follow. E.g. the gamma function is fun for non-integer and complex values.


I note that you deleted the text of your earliest post, which had all the sign juggling in it.

I've never seen the point of removing part of an ongoing discussion unless you had said something you didn't want to be quoted on. I also hold the opinion that if you don't want to be quoted on the things you say, you should not have said them. It is also the reason why on the message board I used to run you could not edit your post after someone had replied to it, though you could append something.

Ben Stein is a former presidential speech writer. He is also a sort of cultural icon for other works. He is known for his flat, droning voice. He played a movie in a famous movie "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" and in one memorable scene he, playing a high school teacher, is calling Ferris Bueller's name repetitively (who had skipped that day). I read the entire paragraph as an attempt at patronization.

- - -

You keep complaining about how the problem is 'sloppy'. This is an odd concept. The problem is as it is. It is up to us to systematically transform it into a more manageable format, in what ever manner we choose, as long as it adheres to the rules of this specific grammar. We have done that.

You have thus far refused to say which specific part of our math you disagree with, except for falsely claiming that I say that 1+1=3. You continue to accuse us of sloppy treatment of negative signs, without saying more then we should subtract square roots.

Your assertion of a=sqrt(m+c), a=(-a) is honestly just a little embarrassing as it only works for c(0,0,INF), which is the sort of coincidence that happens when you set a=(-a).

Your posts continue to make no sense, continue to fail to point out flaws you claim exist, and continue to rudely berate us on the simple premise that I am lying when I am tolerant of all of this. Why should we continue to bother to read, much less respond to, your posts?

- - -

If you are trying to assert that since taking the square root of quantity k results in +/- h, where h*h=k, then I say that it creates the set {+h, -h} of possible solutions. Adding a negation symbol before the square root causes these to be {-h, +h}. And while the two sets are practically identical, I assert that they are different.

Let us state that we are given +sqrt(k) and that this then generates +(+/- h) which we can then subtract from both sides to give us sqrt(k)-(+/- h).

If we were to say that sqrt(k)=(-sqrt(k) ) then we could add +sqrt(k) to both sides and get 2*sqrt(k)=0 which is clearly wrong. If sqrt(4)=(-sqrt(4)) then (+2)= -(+2), which is wrong. Also, if sqrt(4)=(-sqrt(4)), then (-2)= -(-2), which is also wrong.

Therefore a != (-a), except at 0=0, which is a special exception, same as 2 is a special exception to x*x=x+x

It seems very likely that you are the one who has been playing fast and loose with the negation symbols. Just because you can get a +/- after you take the square root of k, doesnt mean that you can negate the quantity sqrt(k). An example of this very concept can be found here.

- - -

I brought this problem up with a friend of mine. He is doubtlessly a genius, but math is not necessarily his strong point... he has had several years of formal math training beyond my own, but multiple times I've been stunned by how he forgets or egregiously misapplies elementary concepts, so take this with consideration:

He asserts that the remaining infinite series after squaring both sides is not equal to c, because while it is an infinite series it is countable, and missing one of the countable elements of the set of its terms. He does not believe that this new series, which he denoted as [c-1] can be replaced with c. In such he believes that c^2=m+[c-1] brings us no further to finding the problem.

He briefly and fruitlessly attempted the following approach before he went to bed:

c^n=(m+(m+(m+ ...)^n/8 )^n/4 )^n/2

He also stated that there is no concept of a last term in an infinite series. He did not dispute that c(0, n/a , INF) = 1, but instead claimed that it was reasonable that infinitely many zeroes summed together would result in 1 & 0.

Deleted.
You don't deserve to read it.
There's no point in communicating with you on this level.

Last edited by mystyc on 30 Nov 2008, 2:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

I have heard about something like this.

If you mock, berate, and insult people all while crying about how much of a tortured genius you are, not a damn person is going to care. The suicide you talked about before you childishly deleted your post won't really make them care either, it will make them pity you and ultimately forget you with more urgency.

Treating people like people is an important aspect in getting people to treat you like a person. ie, what you put in you get out.

You would have a lot to gain from learning how to teach. And I don't mean shoving what you hold as true into someone's face until they 'get it'. I mean honestly learning how to understand what it is that other people struggle in, and helping them overcome it. Its a liberating experience.

By the time I was 8 I could multiply 6 digits numbers in my head in just a couple seconds, but when I was called on to help tutor middle school students with dyscalculia when I was in high school I showed them tricks to make it easier on them, despite the fact that I never met anyone who approached my mathematical skill until I had been in college a few years.

Those people will never understand the relationships between numbers in the way that I do. They will never accept or appreciate my brilliance.

But you know what they did appreciate?

My kindness.

I don't want to make it seem like I think I hold a moral high ground here. I don't. I have struggled with a superiority complex and the existential horror of being truly alone for years. This resulted in a lot of things that I regret. A lot of wasted opportunity. A lot of pain. Some things I did to others and myself have hurt me so bad that I don't remember what it feels like to cry.

But I have struggled, and I have gained ground. I've not won the race yet, but I can tell you that the finish line ain't in any direction that a 28 year old who behaves like I did at half that age* is going... you need to stop and think. What is more important? Your "higher level non sequitur math" (the name of which seems very topically relevant) or your happiness? What path should you head down?

I'd much prefer you head down the selfish path, the one where you care for yourself and do what is best for yourself, where you make yourself happy, as this path results in fulfillment.

* I'm serious - before I read your age I thought you sounded like me when I was 14 and brand new to the internet and message boards. This might not be such a bad thing. I was even worse even earlier in my life, feeling nothing but a perverted disdain and vile hatred for every member of my species. As I grew I passed through an ontological stage like you seem to be in. At about 16 I had calmed down enough to no longer be likely to murder myself. By 19 I had a shot at 19 but I squandered it. By the time I was 21 I was happy. Its only been in the last year I have felt the emotion of happiness.

Of being truly content.

In retrospect, I finally understood a comedy routinue in which the comedian, upon hearing the best possible sort of news, instantly kills himself. Its because when you feel that happiness and contentment you won't care if you died then, as the only thing approaches a concern in your mind is loosing this happiness.

If we are to assume the irrational, that you develop as a person half as fast as me, then by the time you are 42 you will be happy with yourself - thats fine, all you need is to experience it once. You would realize, as I have, that it is far better to abandon every premise of superiority and instead take up the challenge of learning from fools (which is possible, but very difficult and requiring great resolve).

I give you all this because in the end it doesn't matter if I can't understand you, if you can't understand me. Well-being, kindness matters.

You mocked me. Why? I know I am a fool.

I was not always perfect in my posts, not always as kind as I could have been. So? You know I am a fool.

I am a fool, and from one fool to another, I tell you that the secret is easy. Just stop trying. Trying gets in the way of doing.

Last edited by Death_of_Pathos on 30 Nov 2008, 3:32 am, edited 2 times in total.

Yup. That sums up your attitude pretty well.

Well now I am done cleaning up this mess.

Thanks Death_of_Pathos and lau for contributing to my negative experiences here.

Now, never talk to me again. Period. Don't quote me, and stay out of my threads.

Of course, this is meaningless. You will harass me nonetheless. Iau will likely abuse his moderator powers instead of recusing himself from dealing with me, and DoP will continue to make fun of me in other threads and talk about me behind my back.

Both of you are definetly going in my suicide letter as examples of ______ . (I am not sure if finishing that sentence violates the rules, but I am sure Iau will see it that way.)


[Whoops this was added while I was writing.]



"Tortured genius"? Stop making stuff up simply so that you can conceal your veiled personal attacks. I have certainly been bitter while I was here, but it never translates into me being deliberately mean. Of course, I must have always been like this, hence your sob story and parable about "THE MAGICAL POWER OF KINDNESS!". I feel so privileged to learn of your lesson of how a tortured genius should really act... >.>
I think I am going to go out and learn how to TEACH! and to share "THE MAGICAL POWER OF KINDNESS!" by tutoring students with dyscalculia.

Wait a second... Isn't that what I sort of already do at my job? Well, gosh darnit, I think it is! But DoP implies I should go do that, so I am confused? Oh, he must be right, and I must be wrong about what I do. I am sure he has a fancy college degree and knows all sorts of things about teaching and sociology and "the maths".... >.>
[So what is it exactly that I do? Well you clearly don't care. Again, you would rather make stuff up in order to conceal your veiled personal attacks. I am merely sarcastic and blunt, while you are mean and belligerent. But wait, I thought you said you were kind!?!?! Well lets just say that what I will remember of you is not your kindness, but how much of an obstinate bully you are.]


But yeah, like I said, I was not always so bitter, though I was always a tad bit sarcastic, though that is because it was difficult for me to learn about that, so I am sarcastic with pride. My bitterness in what few social interactions I have these days is because no matter how much I try not to offend people, or be "kind" to them, or what have you, that's exactly what I end up doing unintentionally, often without ever realizing it until it is pointed out to me. I tried, and tried harder. I read books, sought all sorts of therapy and advice, and used the best of my philosophical skills to create new techniques and to figure out how to practice them. But it only made things worse. By the time I gained enough understanding of relationships to see what I had, these relationships were already gone, or the ones that I should have avoided already hurt me.

So now I merely understand more about what I don't and cannot have, and what I did have, I have lost. So now I don't try anymore. That does not mean I am deliberately mean, but rather that I can't do anything about it, so I don't care.

Why am I always talking about suicide? Well it is not to make friends. Um, I am pretty sure there's not much point in making friends by killing yourself... I have had suicidal ideations for some time now, and they have grown more intense as things went further downhill. But the last time I spoke openly about it, a "friend" had me sent away to a funny farm, where I was locked away. So after that, I remained completely silent about that. But now I know how and when to be silent and when I don't have to be. Because my suicide is a few months away, I am not that restricted in what I say. Its when it comes closer that I must remain silent of it. Its not a cry for help, so I don't want to be thwarted.

So, in a sense, I talk about my eventual suicide here, not to make people care or to garner their sympathy, but rather for the very reason that I know they don't really care. So I completely agree with you on that point, but thanks for explicitly confirming it. Although you are a belligerent bully, you belong here, whereas I don't, thus your feelings are likely somewhat representative.

Was the deletion of my posts childish? Well from your perspective that seems to be the case. So I did clarify a little bit about the nature of the deletion. I did save a copy of the posts on my HD. I really can't bring myself to destroy the only manifestation of an idea like that. The world of ideas is all I have, thus such an act is like murder. Thus why would I share something as precious as an idea that I helped manifest with you two? I suppose in the world of Normals, that is odd and childish, but it makes perfect sense to me.


Now as for "treating people like people", well, if it were that easy, then I would not be alone and a suicidal 28 year old virgin. I have realized something like this long ago. There are no people in my world. There are simply ideas, things, and sometimes me. I tend to refer to this as the World of Ideas. Ideas and things are more real to me than people. It is not because I am a "bad" person, but rather it is the realization of how my brain works. Sometimes ideas are more real than I am, like when I experience a disassociation or depersonalization episode.

What I wanted was to enter and be part of the real world, The World of People, but it seems I cannot. My carefully constructed world is my prison. There is no way "out" it seems. But at least I can destroy the prison with myself.

I doubt most aspies can see people in the same way NTs can. So I actually suspect that you can't "treat people like people" either. I can't really say much more than that though.

And I cringed when you refered to your "brilliance". More so then when you called me a "tortured genius". Intelligence is a complicated concept, and I never claim to be smart. I typically refer to myself as "well-trained and knowledgeable". Good luck with your "brilliance" and your "genius friend".


[editors note: While editing my post to update it with the new edits to the post I was quoting, new edits appeared again, thus I now refer to those. Note, I find this edit "war" amusing.]




Too late!

I really hate that type of expression. This is the one when people say they don't intend to mean something, but then proceed to clearly do so.




Yeah, I noticed. And clearly you are past that now, given your developmental model where I am 14 and you are 100 years old or something... >.>
Oh, did I mention I have struggled with sarcasm? Yeah, oh, and btw, I did not intend for those 3 sentences to be sarcastic but...




Clearly. Given your developmental model, a hundred years of being alone before you achieved Satori and reached Nirvana must have been horrific. Since I am only 14, I have a long ways to go....



Um, "boo hoo"? Note, clearly you have humbled yourself and have relinquished control of the moral high ground. Because a 22 year old always experiences more years of pain than a 28 year old? Of course, its the age that matters, thus you have to interpret me as 14 and you as 100.



Wow. I wanted to save the comment on the age thing until later, but I can't contain myself.
I know no one will see this as a personal attack, but yeah, it is such a hurtful thing to say.

I do indeed have traits of people younger than me. ASD are, after all, developmental disorders, and thus we are all developmentally delayed (except you, who is clearly close to the finish line). Although I have many many coping skills to deal with social situations and emotions, at times, I encounter new social situations and respond to them like a child. Again, this is typical for people on the spectrum. However, some college know-it-alls on the spectrum think they have experienced all, and are thus not prepared for what is to come when they cannot continue to deny just how developmentally delayed they really are.

The reason why such an attack is so hurtful is not because I get it all the time, but rather I have missed the boat on alot of things. Your talk about missed opportunities is meaningless. When you are my age, and in grad school, and you begin to understand the social milestones that nearly all undergrads encounter that you have not, then that is when you know you missed the boat. Although you are right there, you cannot have the social oppurtunities of an undergrad or even a highschool student. That is pain that I know you have not experienced.

But it seems like you somehow managed to experience some normal high school and college social things. I suspect this is due to early intervention. When I was a child, you could not get a diagnosis of AS. At best you could get PDD-NOS or something and then they will stick you in a class full of other ret*ds and rejects, while never properly treating you. Now, children are properly diagnosed, and recieve early scientifically tested treatment and intervention. So alot of you young aspies benefit from this, but rarely realize it. Why? Because you are all so very cocky about it. God just always gloating about it. Stop gloating already, just because you had some experiences I will never have, and stop making it sound like it has nothing to do with how we grew up differently.

The only thing my therapy has really given me, is the oppurtunity to be hurt in new ways. I could not imagine before how many different ways young aspies could gloat and make me feel bad, while saying, "I am trying to help you and give you advice!".



I actually don't like math much at all, even though I am a physics student, and one of the things I tutor in is math. I don't consider myself to be a skilled mathematician at all, because that is not what I do. But I am not a mathematical moron, like some of my student/clients are.

But I will give you some leeway here because I am familiar with your type, and you can't help making things up in order to reaffirm your own poorly thought out models about the meaning of life, the universe, and everything. (which is obviously wrong because it is not "42").
Of course, again, this involves rephrasing your question, but meh, whatever.
You are probably trying to refer to my interests and obsessions which displace socializing, or some other such nonsense. My interests and obsessions are ideas and the relationship between ideas. It is the "World of Ideas". However, what you present is a false dichotomy, but not a surprising one. It is a common mistake for beginners. (I deserve a little bit of condescending sarcasm after what you are pulling.... grrr...).

The choice I have seen is do I continue to struggle against fate and try to enter the world of people, or do I revert to the lifestyle of a hermit lost in my own world. Both options leave me in despair. The former is to hold on to the hope of success, but inadvertently forces me to hold on to despair as well, as it arises from jealousy and envy of NT's and young aspies who had better opportunities than I did. The later path abandons all hope in order to rid myself of despair. Although it ultimatley won't lead me to despair, the thought of truly completely giving up does. Thus I have moved further towards the third option. Death. True death in my world and the world of people.

One of the most heinous acts is to destroy the only unique manifestation of an idea. By killing myself, it is an act of retribution upon the world. The truest murder of any kind that I can imagine. Out of spite, I deny the world of my potential, my unfinished work, and the ideas I do not yet even know I have. This is me being arrogant, but that is because I am good at what I do. Thus that will be part of my act of vengeance upon the world.



Happiness? Have you yet to develop the capacity for deep introspection? Have you not benefited from being forced to reflect upon the part of your own world that includes you? Clearly not, since you rely upon such cliche'd labeling of your own thoughts and feelings.

Do you know of the "happiness" of a breakup? Or how about the "happiness" of losing a close friend? Or how about the "happiness" of what happens when you really get sick (that is, if you are most NTs)?
I have not experienced these sorts of "happiness", but I longed for them. I wanted both the good and the bad of the world of people. I suspect you have yet to truly understand this, and are merely placated by a string of good luck and circumstance. You are probably not ready for True Happiness. Am I even ready for it? I don't know. But I wanted it. Now I suppose I will never know.



Wow. I really wanted to respond to this bit, but now I can't. Oh well. I really should not put this much effort into expressing ideas at this level to you anyways.



This is part of the same (and ever familiar to me) idea cluster as above. The same vile and detestable arrogance of the above. But this part emphasizes the almost unfathomable hypocrisy of this idea cluster. I have just enough left to comment on it.

The path to hell is laid with the best intentions.
The most horrific acts brought upon men from other men, often finds its source with a man who holds the idea of "I know what's best for everyone". The truly horrific do not call themselves "evil" or "monsters". They call themselves "prophets", "leaders", and seek to serve the "greater good".

Although you know the feeling behind the words you give me, you give me them because you don't know the true tragedy of the ideas behind these words; ideas as old as history, and born fresh in new minds ignorant of its history, bearing the mistaken impression of its uniqueness.




To be honest, I am not sure how to deliberately mock another. I know sarcasm, but I know enough that the two are not strictly equivalent.



"This man is as big a fool as I am, but doesn't even know it."
(source deliberately omitted)

One of the interesting things about ideas is that they are not static. They are fluid and change, divide and merge, so much so, that a Normal would not recognize "a thing" as "the thing", much as I cannot see the majority of non-verbal social communication.

That is why I laugh at your perversion of this old idea. Should I really listen to a person because he calls himself a fool?



This is slightly separate, but it is not uncommon to find it traveling with the former. I might also call this a perversion of the idea, but the perversion has become the idea, and is separate from the original.

Posit for a moment, if you can, that you might not truly know how you reached the point you are at now (with your "success"), and additionally, you might not be at the point you think you are. Then it might be very irresponsible and hypocritical to suggest that one stop trying and thinking, and just "acted", if in fact this is not what you really did.

Now lets posit something different. Perhaps this is a false dichotomy. "Trying" and "thinking" compared to "doing" and "action". Is this to suggest atavism and hedonism? That one can never act and think at the same time?

Now lets posit one last thing. You are a physical therapist attending to the physical therapy of someone trying to walk again. He struggles, but do you tell him to "stop trying and just do it"? People are not Nike shoes. How insulting it would be to prance around someone struggling to walk, insulting him with a catch phrase from a shoe, as if this was helping him. You can walk so easily, and that's because you are "just doing it". See, that's how easy it is. Then again, maybe the client would be sufficiently motivated to learn to walk again so that he could kick your ass.



It is an interesting thing that you "gave" me. It makes you feel better about yourself, that you did your good dead for the day for the poor old moronic ret*d who is beneath you. Yet as a result it makes me feel worse.

Yes you indeed gave me what you could. Like many who have come before you. If I could, I would return the favor. To you, and to the others who share this idea. But I don't have this skill. Nor can I gain it. It is a talent of those ignorant of it, as are many things for NT's and cocky young aspies.

Last edited by mystyc on 30 Nov 2008, 6:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

Quote happens.

Also, edited the above post with some advice regarding you.

Hopefully you can see it for what it is, an attempt at help. I am about to go do a few rounds of Tai Chi to fully remove any concern I have for the outcome of our 'debate'.

In your post before this I saw pain. I saw you wanting for a guide or a companion through life. I can be neither but I gave you what I could.

Good luck, and have fun.

EDIT: Below is quoted in full so I can read the rest of his rant at my leisure, should he decide he wants to retract that too.