Me - you know what i just realized
Them - what is this?
Me - 24 is 42 backwards
Them - that is a truly earth shattering epiphany.
Me - alright, now consider that in the context of Douglas Adams
Them - hooooo. does that mean that you are the opposite of the Answer? or the reverse of the Answer?
Me - maybe I'm the question
Them - maaaybe.
Me - that'd be pretty rad I think
Them - so you are the question. huh.
Me - I should be coveted
Them - wait- does that mean that in 33 days, I am going to be the question? do you get to be the question just today? or does it last all year?
Me - that's the question, isn't it?
Them - I thought you were the question. is this a question within a question? can I answer in point form?
Me - as long they are bulleted with dots and not numbers
Them - who would bullet with numbers? unless you are indicating some kind of sequential order, which even then, if written properly, should be implied
Me - all good points, however, when dealing with questions questioning the answer, which in itself is a number, perhaps, numerical bullets are in order
Them - wouldn't that only further confuse the reader? because what if, say, you had fourty-one points to argue? wouldn't numbering them indicate a subtext?
Me - what if numbering them is key to the Question? we're aware that the answer is 42 which implies that there are 41 of something else
Them - well, that is a good point. but the 41 of something else could be an implied negative- there could be not 41 of something else
Me - yes, but in terms of numeric value, in that case the absolute value would only matter
Them - is that in terms of the numeric value of the numbering system of the bullet points or the answer?
Me - both. the fact that there are 41 something's. whether positive or negative is inconsequential at that juncture. you could be presenting 41 bulleted points, positive or negative, or 41 Something Else leading up to the Answer
Them - but what if there aren't 41 points to be presented?
Me - then there's a gap between them and the Answer. we know that the answer is 42, but we don't know the left side of the equation
Them - what if it's just two points? what if it's really simple? like 42 plus/minus 0? then the answer and the question are one and the same
Me - but in that case there leaves no room for an equation or question
Them - no, there's an equation, zero has no value, but it's more than a placeholder
Me - yes, but you're still lacking a solution side
Them - 42 is the solution
Me - if that were the case the equation would be 42 +/- 0 = ?
Them - that is the question, but we know the answer, being 42
Me - but that would mean that the Answer is itself the question, which cannot be the case given that Deep Thought provided the answer, but not the question, and then proceeded to design another computer to compute the question, leaving the argument that the solution itself is the question null and void
Them - But was Deep Thought not originally provided with the question, but as it took seven and a half million years, the question was forgotten. If A, then B does not state that if B, then not A
Me - transitivity had no place in that, as Deep Thought cannot have been provided the question if it had to build another computer to discover it. Deep Thought was asked "what is the answer to life, the universe, everything" which we know not to be the actual Question to which the answer is 42
Them- yes, 42 being the simplest answer. so then could 42 not be the simplest question?
Me - how would you ask that
Them - Well, damnit. that's the rub. unless you asked using the actual answer to "what is the answer to life, the universe, everything?"
Me - "I checked it very thoroughly," said the computer, "and that quite definitely is the answer. I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you've never actually known what the question is."
Them - so you are the Question, and now we know
Me - I am the opposite of the Question
Them - I thought you were the opposite of the Answer
Me - oh right I am the Question
Them - well, that's one mystery solved
Me - indeed.
Them - what is this?
Me - 24 is 42 backwards
Them - that is a truly earth shattering epiphany.
Me - alright, now consider that in the context of Douglas Adams
Them - hooooo. does that mean that you are the opposite of the Answer? or the reverse of the Answer?
Me - maybe I'm the question
Them - maaaybe.
Me - that'd be pretty rad I think
Them - so you are the question. huh.
Me - I should be coveted
Them - wait- does that mean that in 33 days, I am going to be the question? do you get to be the question just today? or does it last all year?
Me - that's the question, isn't it?
Them - I thought you were the question. is this a question within a question? can I answer in point form?
Me - as long they are bulleted with dots and not numbers
Them - who would bullet with numbers? unless you are indicating some kind of sequential order, which even then, if written properly, should be implied
Me - all good points, however, when dealing with questions questioning the answer, which in itself is a number, perhaps, numerical bullets are in order
Them - wouldn't that only further confuse the reader? because what if, say, you had fourty-one points to argue? wouldn't numbering them indicate a subtext?
Me - what if numbering them is key to the Question? we're aware that the answer is 42 which implies that there are 41 of something else
Them - well, that is a good point. but the 41 of something else could be an implied negative- there could be not 41 of something else
Me - yes, but in terms of numeric value, in that case the absolute value would only matter
Them - is that in terms of the numeric value of the numbering system of the bullet points or the answer?
Me - both. the fact that there are 41 something's. whether positive or negative is inconsequential at that juncture. you could be presenting 41 bulleted points, positive or negative, or 41 Something Else leading up to the Answer
Them - but what if there aren't 41 points to be presented?
Me - then there's a gap between them and the Answer. we know that the answer is 42, but we don't know the left side of the equation
Them - what if it's just two points? what if it's really simple? like 42 plus/minus 0? then the answer and the question are one and the same
Me - but in that case there leaves no room for an equation or question
Them - no, there's an equation, zero has no value, but it's more than a placeholder
Me - yes, but you're still lacking a solution side
Them - 42 is the solution
Me - if that were the case the equation would be 42 +/- 0 = ?
Them - that is the question, but we know the answer, being 42
Me - but that would mean that the Answer is itself the question, which cannot be the case given that Deep Thought provided the answer, but not the question, and then proceeded to design another computer to compute the question, leaving the argument that the solution itself is the question null and void
Them - But was Deep Thought not originally provided with the question, but as it took seven and a half million years, the question was forgotten. If A, then B does not state that if B, then not A
Me - transitivity had no place in that, as Deep Thought cannot have been provided the question if it had to build another computer to discover it. Deep Thought was asked "what is the answer to life, the universe, everything" which we know not to be the actual Question to which the answer is 42
Them- yes, 42 being the simplest answer. so then could 42 not be the simplest question?
Me - how would you ask that
Them - Well, damnit. that's the rub. unless you asked using the actual answer to "what is the answer to life, the universe, everything?"
Me - "I checked it very thoroughly," said the computer, "and that quite definitely is the answer. I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you've never actually known what the question is."
Them - so you are the Question, and now we know
Me - I am the opposite of the Question
Them - I thought you were the opposite of the Answer
Me - oh right I am the Question
Them - well, that's one mystery solved
Me - indeed.
stone cold stober
i took over the world at 10:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment