|Lessons from Math Ol… on ARML|
|Moor Xu on 2013 Pi Day|
|peterthedestroyer on 2013 Pi Day|
|Against the “R… on Contest Math|
|The Ram on Putnam vs USAMO|
- 48,907 hits
According to my standards, Google has violated its motto of “don’t be evil”. Here’s why:
Search for “pi” on Google: http://www.google.com/#q=pi. You’ll notice that Google’s calculator has helpfully provided an approximate value of pi. But look more closely, and you’ll see that there’s a minor problem:
Google used an equals sign, suggesting that pi is precisely 3.14159265. However, as we all should know, pi is irrational and never terminates, so Google is actually telling us something that is blatantly false. By doing so, it is corrupting the minds of all people who view that webpage. Even worse, Google’s calculator truncates the values of all numbers without any indication; even the value of is wrong. We must work to stop this nonsense! Please write to Google and ask them to fix this mathematical falsity.
Click to see a surprising insightful commentary on Google’s evil scheming to rid the world of infinite decimals:
Brought to you by http://www.pakin.org/complaint/:
Parts of what follows below were actually painful to write. However, because of the ongoing misinformation campaigns launched by Google and its vicegerents I feel it is my duty to write this. Although my approach may appear a bit pedantic, by setting some generative point of view against a structural-taxonomical point of view or vice versa, I intend to argue that I do not have the time, in one sitting, to go into the long answer as to why ruffianism has never been successful in the long run. But the short answer is that I have a hard time trying to reason with people who remain calm when they see Google dominate the whole earth and take possession of all its riches.
Denominationalism is an exclusive, rather than an inclusive, societal force. Well, that’s getting away from my main topic, which is that there are some basic biological realities of the world in which we live. These realities are doubtless regrettable, but they are unalterable. If Google finds them intolerable and unthinkable, the only thing that I can suggest is that it try to flag down a flying saucer and take passage for some other solar system, possibly one in which the residents are oblivious to the fact that whenever anyone states the obvious—that Google’s bedfellows have cooperated closely with resentful, rancorous crumbums on several projects—discussion naturally progresses towards the question, “Does Google realize it’s more petulant than a brutish pedant?” I confess that I don’t know the answer to that question. I do know, however, that I despise everything about Google. I despise Google’s attempts to lead us, lemminglike, over the precipice of self-destruction. I despise how it insists that its jejune, disgusting lynch mob is a respected civil-rights organization. Most of all, I despise its complete obliviousness to the fact that by its standards, if you have morals, believe that character counts, and actually raise your own children—let alone teach them to be morally fit—you’re definitely a ridiculous blowhard. My standards—and I suspect yours as well—are quite different from Google’s. For instance, I maintain that I cannot, in good conscience, step aside and let the worst classes of asinine paper-pushers there are make our lives miserable. Of course, this sounds simple, but in reality, the real issue is simple: When I see Google giving its implicit approval—and in some cases explicit approval—to transform our society into a quarrelsome war machine I think that it should reserve its stereotypes and labels and remember to treat others with a bit more respect and equality.
Google has a vested interest in maintaining the myths that keep its cabal loyal to it. Its principal myth is that laws are meant to be broken. The truth is that Google has no discernible talents. The only things it has unmistakably mastered are biological functions. Well, I suppose Google is also good at convincing people that the world is crying out to labor beneath its firm but benevolent heel, but my point is that Google is the picture of the insane person on the street, babbling to a tree, a wall, or a cloud, which cannot and does not respond to its wheelings and dealings. My own position on this issue is both simple and clear: Google is not the only one who needs to reassess its assumptions. Think about audacious poseurs. They too should realize that in these days of political correctness and the changing of how history is taught in schools to fulfill a particular agenda, Google uses the word “anthrohopobiological” without ever having taken the time to look it up in the dictionary. Organizations that are too lazy to get their basic terms right should be ignored, not debated. In closing, all that I ask is that you join me to stop Google and follow knowledge like a sinking star beyond the utmost bound of human thought.