« first day (2424 days earlier)      last day (2600 days later) » 

2:00 AM
Not trivial to show existence or uniqueness, though.
 
If I define f(x) = ln x, what am I saying when I say f(2)?
 
Oh that's interesting
 
Also - with difficulty (and no calculus, except for the Squeeze Theorem at the very end), one can use that definition to show that $\ln2=1-\frac12+\frac13-\dotsb$
 
And the value is ln(2)
 
I go ahead and reveal that I think you can prove God exists from this equation e^(ln 2)=2.
 
2:02 AM
…Is it OK if I don't believe you
 
yes
because i'm not sure how to even write the proof.
except I've writen what I call the Law of the Eternal, a mathematical proof of the existence of God.
@AkivaWeinberger: interesting
 
The issue is that the equation you're giving is merely a consequence of the definitions of those functions. Existence of God is a statement about the world. Math cannot derive statements about the world, its truth is only one within a defined model
 
@AkivaWeinberger your definition of e is very interesing also.
you say that it is the unique number that satisfies that, how unintuitive.
 
A proof of God would need input from reality of some sort
 
no, math can derive statements about the real world. If you tell me that you have 2 shells and 3 coins, I can say that you have 5 objects.
Yes, the input comes from statistics and the nature of the quantum field.
 
2:06 AM
I hate these types of conversations.
 
Like a rock that he can't lift?
 
@MeowMix: sorry to bust your nice ordering.
 
What do you mean? :P
 
@Daminark: I have to use math to derive that answer if I can't count them with my hands and eyes.
lol
Not like a rock.... No, the argument is something like this. Given Eternity the existence of any one thing approaches certainty in it's limit.
that is, as time goes infinitely, x will exist. If x is something conscious, then life happens.
for example.
 
I don't understand any of what you mean, but know that limits don't always exist
 
2:09 AM
@AkivaWeinberger: that was my argument once, yet there is no apriori reason to assert any boundaries.
 
@Akiva want to talk about somethine? I sense this conversation going nowhere
 
@theDoctor Looking at a graph helps
 
Ah a graph won't help in this case, because it already imposes a "boundedness".
We're talking before the existence of structure, a pure field
without dimensionality
I call that the "Quantum Sea".
 
Why do I always see these videos about "sacred geometry"?
It seems like complete bullshit to me.
 
Becuase life is pretty meaningless (since everyone is a lazy coward or something), so we look for meaning whereever we can find it to avoid depression and meaninglessness.
(of course, me being here, is a bit of an indictment against myself)
 
2:12 AM
Umm, this seems more philosophical than mathematical to me.
 
but hey were among friend here, if we're addicted to math's purity for our meaningfulness, hopefully it will translate into something useful... right?
Well, you asked about sacred geometry.... :P
 
@theDoctor I meant, with regards to understanding uniqueness and existence for my definition
 
It is only bullshit, until you realize that meaning happens because we believe in something, even math equations.
@AkivaWeinberger: but how would I apply a graph to the Quantum Sea to search for something unique and existent?
 
I mean I'm into math for math's sake, not for any external purpose. I do think we won't be able to pursue this topic profitably, since even as a fellow believer in God, as far as I'm concerned the supposed proof is making a category error. We're looking at this way too differently
 
ah, categories -- just what I was referring to with "domain theory".
So we apply a domain, so that we have math.
and we make a category so we have objects, right?
 
2:19 AM
@theDoctor You misunderstand what I meant. You said "it is the unique number that satisfies that, how unintuitive." I just said that a graph makes the intuition apparent.
 
@AkivaWeinberger: perhaps you are dependent upon "paper" or "surface", but there is something before either of these.
 
@theDoctor It gives intuition, not a rigorous proof. Intuition is also valuable.
(Rigorous proofs also exist)
@Daminark You mean "type error," not "category error," I think
 
Here's some interesting bit of math philosophy. God must define $\pi$ otherwise it could not exist, constantly. It takes a flat surface, and as there are no flat surfaces whtin the abstraction of mathematics, then God must be making it consistent.... Any rebuttals?
I mean, in order to map the domain of geometry into tthe domain of the reals (3.14159), etc.
 
I don't think it makes enough sense to be rebutted
 
That would be boring, and God wouldn't create a boring universe. Ergo, I don't accept the argument.
 
2:27 AM
damn, consider this: on a spherical surface, I can make pi equal to 2.0.
 
No, you can make the ratio of circumference to the radius equal to 2.
That's not pi.
 
Well, you can make "circumference/diameter" equal to 2, but then it's not pi
Semi, stop saying things at the same time as me
 
No you
 
the equator as circumference, and the line through the pole it's diameter.
 
Okay. So?
 
2:28 AM
Pi is defined to be specifically the circumference over the diameter of a Euclidean circle, which your spherical circle is not
 
To the extent that pi is something geometric, it's for a circle in a flat plane.
 
Well, that's one definition of pi — as I mentioned before, multiple definitions are OK as long as they're equivalent
 
@akiva: you might be the first to define it that way, otherwise plz provide a reference.
 
Right.
 
But how do you know that the plane is flat?
 
2:29 AM
Not going to give references for things which are obvious.
 
You could also define it to be the first positive root of the infinite polynomial $x-x^3/3!+x^5/5!-\dotsb$ (like Rudin does)
 
Because we know what it means to be curved, and planes aren't.
 
@theDoctor …Uh, everyone?
 
On the other hand, you also have the following result for triangles on circles:
 
Reinmann planes are.
 
2:30 AM
$\Delta = (\alpha+\beta+\gamma-\pi)R^2$ where $R$ is the radius and $\alpha,\beta,\gamma$ are the angles of the triangle.
I'm-a just leave this here: xkcd.com/169
 
(and $\Delta$ is the area?)
 
Right.
 
yes, and the angles of triangles do not add up to 180 on the curved surface.
 
@Semiclassical A bit aggressive
 
Yes. But 180 degrees still matters, as the above formula attests.
 
2:31 AM
@theDoctor His point is that you can still use spherical geometry to define pi
(though in a different manner)
@Semiclassical Why not do it directly from $SA=4\pi R^2$
 
Because I like spherical triangles.
Plus, this formula also works for a pseudosphere. (Once you change signs appropriately).
 
Who was it that intuited that you can take the derivative fo the formula for sphere and find the equation for it's surface area?
 
I wonder about that too.
 
That was a neat insight. It works for other equations from 3d to 2d.
 
I mean, it's natural once you think "hey, a really thin spherical shell is basically just the surface area."
 
2:35 AM
All I know is that is wasn't me.
Yes, I've got this mystical brigade that follows me around...
Yet, I mean.
Yes, it seems natural once someone points that out, but at the time it was a really "gee whiz, how the heck did that happen?"
 
Dimensions interstellar
 
4/3 piR^3 , take the deriviative and you have 4 piR^2. Just magical!
@BAYMAX:?? interesting note, but what?
 
@theDoctor @Semiclassical It comes from the fact that the distance from the tangent planes to the center is always constant. That's why it works for both spheres and cubes but not, say, ellipsoids
(Disclaimer: for cubes you need $R$ to be half the sidelength)
 
I was connecting dimensons in chat to the movie interstellar, "they are not beings they are us,we brought ourselves here" :)
 
Sure.
 
2:40 AM
@theDoctor
 
(the is, the distance from the center to the faces)
 
If memory serves, a version of it shows up in solid state physics when it comes to the phase velocity of an energy surface.
Actually, probably group velocity? I forget.
 
(@theDoctor Also works for circles)
($\pi r^2$ to $2\pi r$)
 
Yes, each invocation of the deriviative collapse a dimension.
collapses
 
@Semiclassical I think that might be the reason $\partial$ is used for "boundary" in topology
 
2:42 AM
what happens after $2\pi r$ ?
 
that's very cool, and unintuitive that such a result would occur when the Ancients had no knowledge of calculus.
 
Sure.
 
this connection between differentiation and boundaries
 
@BAYMAX: excellent Q.
you end up with 2pi
 
I do marvel at the fact that Archimedes evidently knew how to do the volume of a sphere and a cylinder.
 
2:42 AM
something relating to physics.
 
Yeah what interpretation we can give about that ?
 
@Semiclassical: Yes
the interpretation has to do about the significance of the POINT.
 
@Semiclassical And the areas of ellipses and parabolas
 
and it's relation to the ATOM, I think, in the democetes sense.
 
Yeah. @akiva
 
2:44 AM
before quarks.... and subatomic physics changed it.
 
The fact that the ancients were able to find the area of a circular lune is another weird thing to me.
 
ATOM <=> POINT
circular WHAT?
 
In plane geometry, a lune is the concave-convex area bounded by two circular arcs, while a convex-convex area is termed a lens. The word "lune" derives from luna, the Latin word for Moon. Formally, a lune is the relative complement of one disk in another (where they intersect but neither is a subset of the other). Alternatively, if A and B are disks, then L = A − A ∩ B {\displaystyle L=A-A\cap B} is a lune. == Example == In the 5th century BC, Hippocrates of Chios showed that certain lunes could be exactly...
I guess the 'circular' adjective is unnecessary.
 
Yes, I know.... It's mind-boggling. the only interpretation I can get is that we were completely different kinds of people.
 
@AkivaWeinberger That should be just because it corresponds to the boundary map in homology, and we have a tradition of things squared =0 by del or d.
 
2:46 AM
If people is even the right interpretation. I mean I think the Greeks were within God himself.
And not part of out world. As such, they exist in a negative dimension (or imaginary)....
 
Though I guess I'm forgetting things slightly. Hippocrates could find the area of a specific lune, not a generic one.
still pretty bizarre.
 
It is magical to no end as to how they figured that shit out.
I mean, they have different minds, that derive from different posits.
My basis is the Biblical beginning, theirs is not.
(I'm not a Christian, just a Deist.)
 
@theDoctor The ancients were not gods. Archimedes was undeniably a genius, but there are geniuses in every generation. That's what I think, anyway
 
Yeah, but who among us can think like that? I mean it's alien to me/us, but it is natural to them.
 
There is more legend than fact about people like Archimedes.
 
2:50 AM
Who would have even thought of finding a number that relates a circumpherence to a diameter and make it fucking transcendental?
No one in my world, I'll tell you that.
 
Meh. The fact that pi exists isn't all that crazy.
 
We would have made it a real number, when in fact it belongs to a completely different DOMAIN.
 
@theDoctor You're comparing the average of our generation to the stars in theirs. Also:
@theDoctor What year do you think people first proved $\pi$ was transcendental?!
 
In fact, once you think in terms of units it's fairly immediate: the area is measured in meters squared, the radius in units of meters.
 
No, I'm comparing two completley different styles of thought. there are stars in our generation too, but my argument is that we think completely differently (the Western mind and the Greek).
 
2:52 AM
so the area/radius^2 is independent of the units.
(That it's the same as circumference / diameter is weirder, but it goes to circumference is pretty much just a narrow annulus."
 
Whoa, you just made me think:
 
$\pi$ was first proven to be transcendental in 1882
It was first proven to be irrational in 1761
 
\If you can find a transcendental number in 2 dimensions with one dimensional objects, what can you find using spheres, and 2-dimensional objects?
 
@AkivaWeinberger Related question: When did the possibility of a number being transcendent arise?
 
that is what is the ratio of the surface area of the sphere to the area of it's bisection?
 
2:54 AM
Also, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that transcendental numbers are rare
They are not
 
I'm saying that pi is transcendental, andI'm still searching for the right way to defend it, without resorting to it's digital approximiation.
I say that they are rare, and irrational number are not.
 
What is rarer, to be fair, is to be able to prove that a given number is transcendental.
 
I mean, I'd be gobsmacked if $\pi+e$ were proven to not be transcendental.
But I have no idea how one could prove it, and as far as I know no one else does either.
 
2:56 AM
@theDoctor What do you mean its bisection? The area of the circle bound by its equator?
Then that would be $(4/3\pi r^3)/(\pi r^2)=\frac43r$
 
I guess the ration is 4pi, which perhaps tells me something interesting about the number 4...is it that there are two dimensions squared?
 
In more modern terms, the weirdest example of a genius has to be Ramanujan.
I mean wtf.
 
yes the area of the circle bound by its equator.
@Semiclassical: yeah, I'm with you there, but I say he was just a whiz at domain Q
that he used the same thought processes, he just was at level 100, while most are at level 20.
 
Ramanujan did not have the same thought process
 
I have no insight into Ramanujan's thought processes, so I can say nothing.
 
2:59 AM
I don't understand most of his work, but I think he was just something else
 
@akiva: I think he did, but then maybe YOU ARE Greek...?
 
No, I'm from New York
 
Ah, perhaps no Greeks there :)
 
I'm sure you'll find a community of Greek people somewhere here
Maybe in Queens
New York is very diverse
 
But no, the ratio is not 4/3R
(4/3)R
 
3:00 AM
Oh yeah I'm from Astoria, we had a lot of Greek people
 
5 mins ago, by theDoctor
I say that they are rare, and irrational number are not.
 
Doesn't anyone else find it an interestiong question how you might find an EQUALLY transcendental number as pi in 3d?
 
Not really.
 
Just gonna say, that there's a certain natural definition of "rare," and that the transcendental numbers are as far from rare as you can get
 
Okay, but I define geometry (the domain where pi is transcendental) in the domain A.
 
3:01 AM
The problem is, you can't make R^3 have a number system which behaves nicely
 
not R
 
That makes no sense
 
Of course you have geometry there, and real numbers have relevance
 
I mean, we know how to find the ratio of the volume of a n-dimensional sphere to its (n-1)-dimensional surface area.
 
here's a thought experiement: what is the surface area of the INSIDE of a sphere?
 
3:02 AM
If you want more transcendental numbers, the perimeters of ellipses might be good places to start, though
 
what is the equation?
 
hi
 
Of the inside of a sphere?
It'd be the same
 
But the elements of R^3 fail to form what I think is called a division algebra
 
@Semiclassical: but I'm not interesting in the volume, like the circumpherence to the dimeter in 2d, it's the surface area to the circle's area in the midsection's area (whose ratio would be independent of R).
But then the width of the sphere is 0. where did it go?
 
3:03 AM
Though the set of algebraic numbers are countable, while the set of real numbers is uncountable, meaning that if you pick a real number at random, the probability of it being transcendental is 100%
 
the thickness.
 
For reference:
 
That's the definiton
 
In geometry, a ball is a region in space comprising all points within a fixed distance from a fixed point. An n-ball is a ball in n-dimensional Euclidean space. The volume of an n-ball is an important constant that occurs in formulas throughout mathematics. == Formulas == === The volume === The n-dimensional volume of a Euclidean ball of radius R in n-dimensional Euclidean space is: V n ( R ) = π ...
 
It has no thickness in one dimensiom
Same for a circle...
 
3:04 AM
does it exist then?
 
Main thing to notice in that article is that all of the formulas just involve things like $\pi^{1/n}$ for integer $n$.
 
yes... of course
 
See, there are some interesting questions within the philosophy of math.
 
It doesn't exist physically, it does in the abstract
 
So you're just getting variations on $\pi$ if you try to take ratios of n-sphere properties.
 
3:05 AM
Of course that sounds rather reminiscent of the Platonic forms
 
Does (0,0) exist? after all it has no thickness in either dimension
 
Which isn't /really/ what I'm aiming at necessarily, I'm generally skeptical of Plato
 
So you don't get any interesting new transcendental constants in that way.
 
Thanks for that wiki article, that is fascination.
 
$3i\sin(3i) + cos(3i) $ can i futher reduce it in terms of $e$ ?
 
3:06 AM
why
oops
 
@BAYMAX Plug in the definitions of sine and cosine in terms of e
 
What's broader, and far more modern, is that $\pi$ can be represented as a certain integral.
 
Well, now we get to the question of "what does it mean to exist?" Does 0 exist?
 
But basically, the only things you truly know (or at least, you can't reasonably frame any knowledge without) are the laws of logic, and that we have subjective experience
 
Wouldn't the lebesgue measure of a set be dependent on which R^n we choose?
 
3:07 AM
ANd I say, it only exists in domain Q (or N)
 
And so one gets into the question of what quantities can be represented (in a sufficiently interesting way) by an integral.
 
@theDoctor Oh please.
 
@Semiclassical Unsolved question: Can $\frac1\pi$ be represented by an integral? (Under certain conditions — $\int_0^{1/\pi}1dx$ doesn't count — but I forget the details)
 
Now you're getting into philosophy again
 
Yeah, I remember seeing that question in an article by Zagier on period integrals.
 
3:08 AM
I may be speaking to far ahead of myself, because the distinction is between "nothingness" and 0.
 
lemme find it
Ah, Kontsevich and Zagier: maths.ed.ac.uk/~aar/papers/kontzagi.pdf
 
Yeah, I've seen it but never read it
 
I read the bit on Picard-Fuchs quite a bit.
 
I got $2e^{-3} - e^{3}$ ? @AkivaWeinberger
 
Sounds plausible
 
3:10 AM
Now, we talk about "the real world", when really we can only talk about our perception of it. In that sense, you can't really make much of an ontological distinction (physical world exists and ideas do not). Thus, any well-definable model can be said to "exist" in some sense, even if not physically, as far as we can reasonably define existence without resorting to suggesting that the physical component of our reality is externally inspired, which is impossible to prove or disprove.
Anyway I'm gonna cease rambling about ontology now
Again, little profit can come from it, and here we're more concerned about the practice of math than the philosophy of math
 
@BAYMAX Wolfram Alpha says you're right
 
thanks@AkivaWeinberger
 
@Daminark: discussion on ontology are important, I think. Without which there is a lot of long-standing confusion. I've written a paper called "the New Metaphysics" at medium.com. It's totally rough, because I'm looking for collaborators.
 
@akiva found where they mention it, though it's only in passing
 
@AKiva can we talk about lebesgue measure?
 
3:15 AM
But it lays a groundwork, by defining terms, so that domain theory can pop out of it.
yeah, i'd like to hear about lebesgue measures..
 
Paraphrasing: "Of course there exist numbers which can't be expressed as periods, since the latter set is countable. Finding an explicit example of such would be the analogue of Liouville's achievement in the 19th century when he constructed the first explicit example of a number which could be proved to be transcendental.
Even more desirable, of course, would be to emulate the achievements of Hermite and Lindemann and prove that some specific numbers of interest, like e or 1/pi, can't be expressed as periods."
Kinda neat that people don't know how to do this stuff.
 
@MeowMix Sure, for a bit, but then I go to bed
 
But then all this heads into motivic stuff and I quit.
 
@Semiclassical Mimic Cantor's diagonalization proof to construct a (messy) example of a non-period :P
 
How does the equation 2e^(-3)-e^3 relate to sine and cosine?
 
3:20 AM
@theDoctor It all starts when you try to take the sines of imaginary numbers
The short version goes through Euler's formula
Do you know it?
 
sin x - i cos x, or something, damn i should remember that.
 
e^ix = cos x+i sin x
 
because it goes straight into domain theory
 
(Which isn't a real thing)
(although type theory is a thing, but I think it's different — in any case, I don't know any type theory)
 
Domain theory is category theory for arithmetic rather than symbols....?
The distinction is about the referencing and naming of the thing vs. the thing itself. I can define categories of symbols (types), but that is totally different than domains of number., even though they relate to each other through the use of things like the equal = sign.
 
3:26 AM
I need to go to bed now, bye
 
Oh I missed it
 
Euler's formula is a wierd interstitial area between domain A, geometry and domain R.
I don't think, however, that it can be the only relation.
missed "it"?
Personally I think calculus should be reserved for physics, not math. Math should be limited to hard geometry and arithmetic in domain Q.
Anyway, it's fun talking to you all. I hope I wasn't too obtuse, boring, or meaningless.
 
See you around Doc!
 
3:47 AM
Oh one last thing, with regard to the area of the inside of a sphere, it is equal to the outside only in domain A, geometry, not domain R, the reals. Good luck understanding that! Muhahaha.
(thickness being 0 only works in domain of geometry, not in the reals, where a sphere with equal SA on inside and outside wouldn't exist)
 
Hi there.
Let $\Delta u = 0$ for $0 < r < R$. If $u \geq 0$, prove that $u = \alpha \ln(r) + v$ where $r = \|x\|$ and $v$ is harmonic (i.e. $\Delta v = 0$) for $r < R$ and $\alpha \leq 0$.
 
Work in cylindrical coordinates, and it's immediate.
 
Hint: consider $\displaystyle\int_{0}^{2\pi}u(r,\theta)(1\pm{\cos(n\theta))d\theta}$ and $\displaystyle\int_{0}^{2\pi}u(r,\theta)(1\pm{\sin(n\theta))d\theta}$
Immediate? How.
We are working in two dimensions, I suppose you meant polar coordinates.
 
Yeah.
 
Actually I don't see how the hint could help
 
3:59 AM
In polar coordinates, the Laplacian is just $$\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial r^2}+\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial u}{\partial r}+\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial \theta^2}=0$$
 
Yeah.
 
Though, hmm. They want you to prove it under the assumption that $u$ is positive.
That may be rather different than what I had in mind.
 
And the hint was given after two days of post the problem (since noone could solve it).
 
Hmm.
Yeah, I feel like there's more to that question than I'm seeing.
I guess the thing I do notice about that hint is that the integrands are by assumption nonnegative.
(The 1\pm trig part is positive because trig functions are bounded by \pm 1, and u is bounded below by zero by assumption.)
So therefore you can say that $\int_0^{2\pi}u(r,\theta)\,d\theta\geq\pm \int_0^{2\pi}u(r,\theta)\cos(n\theta)\,d\theta$.
And the same sort of bound for $\sin(n\theta)$. @Topologicalife
Which I guess translates into some bounds on the expansion coefficients of $u(r,\theta)$?
 
I'm thinking about it.
 
4:12 AM
I guess that bound could just be understood as $\int_0^{2\pi}u(r,\theta)\,d\theta\geq \left|\int_0^{2\pi}u(r,\theta)\cos n\theta\,d\theta\right|$.
 
Mm yeah but I don't see how that could help.
I think I will take a break. Two hours thinking about this problem.
 
Mmkay.
 
I don't think it is a mathoverflow question.
There is something we are missing, something obvious.
 
0
Q: Determine truth value: If $n^2$ is a multiple of 5, then $n$ is a multiple of 5.

Oromiongood day mathematicians of Math Stack Exchange, I have a bit of curiosity about this exercise that my teacher proposed in class today and says the following: Determine truth value: For all $n\in\mathbb{Z}$, if $n^2$ is a multiple of 5, then n is a multiple of 5. Thanks so much! Please give a proo...

OPs question is smaller than extra messages.
 
@Topologicalife do you know complex analysis?
because I believe there's a nice solution to this problem by passing to the universal cover of the punctured disk, then using the fact that you can get a harmonic conjugate, and pass back using $\exp$ and $\log$ or something. This doesn't use your hint though
 
4:33 AM
What makes me suspicious of that is the assumption that $u\geq 0$.
 
oh didn't even see that
hmm... I'm pretty sure this is actually the form of ALL harmonic functions on the punctured disk though
 
Right.
 
4:49 AM
Yeah @Eric, I know some.
But I studied it like 2 years ago.
 
5:02 AM
yeah so using what I said you can pass to the universal cover of the punctured disk which is some half plane, then you can get a harmonic conjugate $v$ of $u \circ \exp$, then to correct for the fact that this generally isn't periodic you subtract by $cz$ where $c$ is some constant, then you can pass back to the disk by composing $u\circ\exp + iv - cz$ with $\log$, and take real parts, giving you $u(z) + \alpha \log(|z|)$
there's probably a more elementary way to do this with your hint though, I just don't see it
 
5:19 AM
@Eric did you mean $v(z) + \alpha \log(|z|)$?
 
Sorry, I was unclear, if $f(z) = u\circ\exp(z) + iv(z) - cz$, then taking $Re(f \circ \log(z)) we get $u - c\log(|z|)$, which means $u = Re(f \circ \log(z)) + c\log(|z|)$, so $u$ was arbitrary harmonic on the punctured disk, and we wrote it as the real part of a holomorphic function (which is harmonic on the disk), plus a $c\log(|z|)$ term.
 
Mm, is correct the latex code? I see weird things.
 
oops, sorry I messed it up royally
 
Let me rewrite lol
Sorry, I was unclear, if $f(z) = u\circ \exp(z) + iv(z) - cz$, then taking $Re(f \circ \log(z))$ we get $u(z) - c\log(|z|)$, which means $u = Re(f \circ \log(z)) + c\log(|z|)$ so $u$ was an arbitrary harmonic function on the punctured disk, and we wrote it as the real part of a holomorphic function (which is then a harmonic function), plus a $c\log(|z|)$ term. That should be better
 
5:31 AM
Yeah, thanks, got it :)
 
Omg @AlexanderGruber your last post here was 298 days ago?
 
@skillpatrol Yeah, my life has been pretty busy.
Research is hard
 
Indeed, how's your back feeling? @AlexanderGruber
 
They figured out it actually had nothing to do with the accident
You know
I was on this other medication at the time for an unrelated condition and evidently muscle spasm is a rare side effect
I happened to be off of it by coincidence for a couple of weeks when I couldn't get to a pharmacy and all of a sudden I realized I had full flexibility and no pain at all
 
5:46 AM
So you're okay now?
 
Great to hear.
 
In fact, because of all the stretching I was doing just to try to get normal, my flexibility is now exceptionally above average
 
Cool.
 
Yeah I'm pretty happy about it
What's been up with you?
 
5:48 AM
Not much, just trying to stay out of trouble ;-)
 
/trying/
:P
How's it going?
Shog?
 
Haha uh oh
That's a bad place to be
 
Ah, I see
 
I gotta keep it cool :-)
 
@Daminark he's one of the gods of this world
 
5:53 AM
Aight, I'll keep a mental note of that
@arctic Hey!
 
hey
 
How's it going?
 
aight
fun answer on mse
birthday
stuff
 
Look who's here @arctictern after 298 days
 
Oh, happy birthday!
 
5:54 AM
ah, hey @AlexanderGruber
 
Happy birthday pal.
 
@arctictern Howdy there
 
Too bad @robjohn isn't around.
 

« first day (2424 days earlier)      last day (2600 days later) »