sorry bout yesterday. was so tired i actually went to sleep @ 11:30. yes this is PM and not AM. i think it’s been the earliest for since i came to college. was working on my EE hw which my eyes felt like concrete and i just couldn’t hold it up anymore. i dont even know why i was so tired especially since i only had 2 classes.
Giants lost badly today, but had an EXTREMELY GREAT comeback today! did you watch the game. looks like the Angels were winning with a 3-0 score till the 5th or 6th inning then BAM! Angel’s pitcher started breaking up and allowed 2 runs. then a 3rd. then a 4th! and when Robb Nen came in during 9th and got 3 outs. WE WIN!!!!
welp besides the game yesterday, it was devastating that my system crashed after 2 weeks of uptime. stupid microsoft and stupid outlook! hate you hate you hate you!
bumped into tacoman today! it’s been the first time i’ve seen him in ages. well, i guess last time i saw him was probably last year last day of school. sigh. it’s cool. ^_^x cunndogg asks why i get to bump into so many ppl?!? i guess it’s fate. but he doesn’t believe in that. hehe ^_^x
here’s an update on harrybons mice attack. apparently he’s caught 5 so far, but there’s MORE. seems that the like hiding underneath the fridge and although rumors say they prefer peanut butter over cheese (not cartoon rumors), the mouse still went for the cheese. so i guess cartoon does actually have some facts behind it. hehe.
cunndogg, liam, and i spent a very long time arguing about set theory and diagonalization. i won’t get too deep into, but here’s something to ponder on. It’s also known as Russel’s paradox. Given the set of all sets that don’t belong in their set, can such a set exist? assume it does, does this set belong to itself? assume yes, then you’ve broken the set’s requirement which only takes in sets that don’t belong to themselves. let’s assume no then, but then this set should include it since it didn’t belong to itself. basically, russell’s paradox has broken set theory which is basically what math is based off of. however, humans have ignored this set and arithmetic is still able to function. in class, they used the same proof to show that several types of programs can’t be written, and cunndogg argues that just because u can show it with this proof, that doesn’t mean you can’t ignore this case and move on. as liam says, both arithmetic and programming are based on axioms which follows rules. as long as the axioms allow for the case to be ignored, then everything will work. if not, it’ll break.