4 ms·
I read your comment and thought, “that’s quite a simplistic thing to say, hardly worth making such a comment.” But I re-read it and thought, “then again the co
by LeonB 2y ago
I read your comment and thought, “that’s quite a simplistic thing to say, hardly worth making such a comment.”
But I re-read it and thought, “then again the commenter is saying ‘good’ not ‘great’… perhaps they are admitting to more nuance?”
Interesting concepts, thank you.
- shmerl 2y agoI think the article which argues against re-reading doesn't deserve a longer comment.
- 2-3-7-43-1807 2y agoi think i get your point. on one hand the article doesn't even really deserve the time to write any comment. on the other hand its pretentiousness and attention here opens a dissonance which one seeks to resolve. i mean, why even make a fuss about that at all about reading a book again? i like a book. i might reread it again. someone else begs to differ, shall they seek heaven in their own fashion. i reread a number of books and it was always a pleasure.
- LeonB 2y agoWell, Sylvester (see footnote), or Euclid, whatever your name is, I think you get what I’m saying. Footnote: on rereading your message, the sequence 2,3,7,43,1807 jumped out at me as being “Sylvester’s sequence” — sometimes called Euclid numbers — I definitely did not have to look that up in the online integer sequence database and simply know all these things intuitively.