2 ms·

It all follows directly from the very definition of the exponentiation operation itself. You can go work the math yourself, I'm not here to educate illiterate p

by lanna 10y ago

It all follows directly from the very definition of the exponentiation operation itself. You can go work the math yourself, I'm not here to educate illiterate people.

dahart 10y ago
Hahahaha! That's an extra unfortunate choice of insult, it really doesn't look good for you. But I hope it made you feel better. Look, I'm honestly sorry if I offended you along the way, that wasn't my intent. If it was my remark about imagination, it might have been poorly worded on my part, but that wasn't directed at you personally or meant as an insult -- it's actually really difficult for all people to see how certain simple ideas were constructed, when you've known them your whole life. You know what an exponent is so well and so thoroughly, you might not have a strong grasp on how it was defined and developed through history. I don't. Another example: it's very hard to imagine life without 0, but 0 didn't always exist, the symbol 0 was given a definition, and we still haven't fully resolved how to use it in all cases. Now, since I just quoted the definition of exponentiation itself from Wikipedia and the formal definition includes the base case b^1 = b, I think you've completely failed to make an educated point to go along with your insult. I didn't ask for you to define exponentiation so you could educate me, I asked so that you could think carefully and tell me if you can define what exponentiation is without using the base case. Were you to actually try, you may find it difficult. Or not, I might be wrong, so feel free to prove me wrong or cite a source that proves me wrong, if you want. As it stands, my takeaway for now is that your insult is a substitute for the argument you don't have, so you're forfeiting your position and handing me a walkover.

2 ms·

It all follows directly from the very definition of the exponentiation operation itself. You can go work the math yourself, I'm not here to educate illiterate p

by lanna 10y ago

It all follows directly from the very definition of the exponentiation operation itself. You can go work the math yourself, I'm not here to educate illiterate people.

dahart 10y ago
Hahahaha! That's an extra unfortunate choice of insult, it really doesn't look good for you. But I hope it made you feel better. Look, I'm honestly sorry if I offended you along the way, that wasn't my intent. If it was my remark about imagination, it might have been poorly worded on my part, but that wasn't directed at you personally or meant as an insult -- it's actually really difficult for all people to see how certain simple ideas were constructed, when you've known them your whole life. You know what an exponent is so well and so thoroughly, you might not have a strong grasp on how it was defined and developed through history. I don't. Another example: it's very hard to imagine life without 0, but 0 didn't always exist, the symbol 0 was given a definition, and we still haven't fully resolved how to use it in all cases. Now, since I just quoted the definition of exponentiation itself from Wikipedia and the formal definition includes the base case b^1 = b, I think you've completely failed to make an educated point to go along with your insult. I didn't ask for you to define exponentiation so you could educate me, I asked so that you could think carefully and tell me if you can define what exponentiation is without using the base case. Were you to actually try, you may find it difficult. Or not, I might be wrong, so feel free to prove me wrong or cite a source that proves me wrong, if you want. As it stands, my takeaway for now is that your insult is a substitute for the argument you don't have, so you're forfeiting your position and handing me a walkover.