It really is that simple.

[Borachio]

How much simpler can it get?

Spoiler :

No. Look, it's all very well saying X really boils down to Y, but is it really that simple? Isn't human nature irretrievably complex?

 

[gay_Aleks]

The answer lies in the question;
as simple as it gets
refrigerator.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So this is what event horizon looks like.

Like the curtains.

 

[gay_Aleks]

It looks like an neverending blackhole, to which everything succumbs to?

I thought that was CFC-OT in general.

 

[bhsup]

Negative X plus or minus the square root of b squared minus four a c all over two a.

Now that is simple.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Quite on the contrary.

cosalpha plus sinapha results into tgaalpha/cotgalpha!

Squared by two.

 

[Quackers]

too meta for me

 

[Borachio]

Eh? That's the solution to a quadratic equation. I'm confused.

LOOK. Nothing is ever "that simple".

Is it?

 

[bhsup]

Well no. That IS the quadratic equation. The solution would be on the other side of the equals sign.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Event horizon just got cloudy.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Perhaps posting an image, or even an animation of how it works, would do a good way showing how really simple some mathematical concepts truly really are.

Event horizon just got cloudy.

Hey, event horizon! You're only 1 billion years old! So hands off the alcohol cabinet!

 

[Borachio]

Well no. That IS the quadratic equation. The solution would be on the other side of the equals sign.

I thought the quadratic equation is of the form ax^2 + bx + c = 0. Has it changed? (or it could be equal to f(x) if you want to go all pedantic, I guess)

edit: Yep, you're confusing me with your negative X. I don't know what you're doing with that. Some kind of magimatheticals. I'll be bound.

 

[bhsup]

Event horizon just got cloudy.

I thought the quadratic equation is of the form ax^2 + bx + c = 0. Has it changed?

Honestly, you may well be right. I was happy to remember what I did from 1983-84 math class...

 

[gay_Aleks]

I thought the quadratic equation is of the form ax^2 + bx + c = 0. Has it changed?

That's the form, but bhsup was showing the formula which you'd use to solve it.

 

[BvBPL]

The answer lies in the question;
as simple as it gets
refrigerator.

Sometimes it is said;
Simpler is best when you are;
In between the sheets.

 

[classical_hero]

Negative X plus or minus the square root of b squared minus four a c all over two a.

Now that is simple.

It's a simple formula.

 

[Harv]

I thought the quadratic equation is of the form ax^2 + bx + c = 0. Has it changed? (or it could be equal to f(x) if you want to go all pedantic, I guess)

edit: Yep, you're confusing me with your negative X. I don't know what you're doing with that. Some kind of magimatheticals. I'll be bound.

It looked like a typo to me.

Negative X b plus or minus the square root of b squared minus four a c all over two a.

There.

x = [-b ± (b²-4ac)]/(2a) in other words.

Now that is simple.

 

[Perfection]

​​​​​

 

[Kyriakos]

Eh? That's the solution to a quadratic equation. I'm confused.

LOOK. Nothing is ever "that simple".

Is it?

I agree.

But one can always just focus on the dark epicenter of complexity, and sort of drift away/revert to a collapsing bit of sand leaving the layers of the walls so as to become again one with the nest opening below them, and the mandibles of what awaits you there.

 

[Goodfella]

It's really that simple and nobody seems to notice...