Ahhh see THIS is why you need to read "Zen & the art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
A perfect classic/romantic quality issue is what you have here - you are trying to use classic methods of underlying form to define a romantic quality. But romantic quality is overall, it is intuitive, it is FELT, not quantified. Classic quality is born from romantic, it is part of it, just a segment.
So your normal equations just don't work, is like trying to work out which of your drinking glasses is best suited to hold the ocean in.
Of course you really knew all this anyways, but hey, I'm enjoying the book so much I just couldn't resist ;)
Getting (as I did) this comment through email the lampshade order was quite random and nonsensical!! but then again you are the female of the species so...
I could natter on about romantic and classic quality for too long at the moment...but that would be missing the point that you weren't actually trying to quantify <3 but rather just expressing in your language of choice that age old mystery "what IS <3"
I'm sure poets and philosophers the world over have speant good portions of their lives trying to puzzle that one out...so don't be too tough on yourself if the answer eludes...
Well of course, the source material clearly shows a Laplace Transform.. however I see here you have chosen the Fourier Transform
The function that appears is however half way between a Fourier Transform and an Inverse Fourier Transform..
If you intended a Fourier Transform, there is no coefficient multiplying the integral (the 1/sqrt(2pi) shouldn't be there). The f(t) should be replaced with a <3 symbol.
If it was intended to be an Inverse Fourier Transform, it should be 1/2pi (not sqrt(2pi)!!) f(t) should be F(<3), and it would be e^-i<3t
Comments 11
A perfect classic/romantic quality issue is what you have here - you are trying to use classic methods of underlying form to define a romantic quality. But romantic quality is overall, it is intuitive, it is FELT, not quantified. Classic quality is born from romantic, it is part of it, just a segment.
So your normal equations just don't work, is like trying to work out which of your drinking glasses is best suited to hold the ocean in.
Of course you really knew all this anyways, but hey, I'm enjoying the book so much I just couldn't resist ;)
Reply
but that book is definately on the 'to read' list. now go see my lampshade!
Reply
I could natter on about romantic and classic quality for too long at the moment...but that would be missing the point that you weren't actually trying to quantify <3 but rather just expressing in your language of choice that age old mystery "what IS <3"
I'm sure poets and philosophers the world over have speant good portions of their lives trying to puzzle that one out...so don't be too tough on yourself if the answer eludes...
Reply
... humans are cursed with mediocre intelligence that restricts full comprehension of emotions that we experience.
Reply
Reply
Reply
is the "my normal approach" a pun on the last equation? (or close to it)
Reply
but go here: http://xkcd.com/
Reply
<3
Reply
Well of course, the source material clearly shows a Laplace Transform.. however I see here you have chosen the Fourier Transform
The function that appears is however half way between a Fourier Transform and an Inverse Fourier Transform..
If you intended a Fourier Transform, there is no coefficient multiplying the integral (the 1/sqrt(2pi) shouldn't be there). The f(t) should be replaced with a <3 symbol.
If it was intended to be an Inverse Fourier Transform, it should be 1/2pi (not sqrt(2pi)!!) f(t) should be F(<3), and it would be e^-i<3t
Well, I hope thats what you wanted kitty XD ~ <3
Reply
Leave a comment