my math teacher asked me to prove a lewis carroll geometry proof that’s supposedly derived from a euclid proposition. in book 6 prop 3 of elements, euclid proves that if you bisect an angle in a triangle, the segments of the base cut by the bisecting line are in the same ratio with the other two respective sides of the triangle. lewis carroll proves that if you take that triangle and from either vertex of the base construct a line parallel to the angle bisector and extend the side of the triangle opposite it so they meet, the part of the base closest to the newly constructed line and the part of the side extended beyond the initial triangle, taken together, will equal the constructed line.
i have a basic idea how to approach it (i’ve been working on this for the past hour) but i’m honestly stuck. would any of you interested in math mind helping me? i can create a google document or something with the diagram and idk.
His body isn’t even cold yet and the New York times has already put out a shameful article declaring Nelson Mandela to be an “icon of peaceful resistance”. News outlets around the Western world are hurrying to publish obituaries that celebrate his electoral victory while erasing the protracted and fierce guerrilla struggle that he and his party fought against the white supremacist South African state in order to make that victory possible. Don’t let racist, imperialist liberalism co-opt the legacy of another radical. Nelson Mandela used peaceful means when he could, and violent means when he couldn’t. For this, during his life they called him a terrorist, and after his death they’ll call him a pacifist — all to neutralize the revolutionary potential of his legacy, and the lessons to be drawn from it.
Don’t fucking let them.
so my question is: who rocks a better pant suit, hillary clinton or tilda swinton? my initial vote goes to tilda swinton because she of course slightly resembles david bowie, who, as we all know, rocks the best pant suit. but isn’t the pant suit closely related to the business casual which would mean that hillary would get a +1 but this is a very tough question?
you can now purchase a destroy capitalism banksy print from walmart
And in the meantime the more I have thought about it, the more sorry I have gotten about what I said.
I mean about Michelangelo, not about Herodotus.
Certainly I would have found it more than agreeable to shake Michelangelo’s hand, no matter how the pope or Louis Pasteur might have felt about this.
In fact I would have been excited just to see the hand that had taken away superfluous material in the way that Michelangelo had taken it away.
Actually, I would have been pleased to tell Michelangelo how fond I am of his sentence that I once underlined, too.
Perhaps I have not mentioned having once underlined a sentence by Michelangelo.
I once underlined a sentence by Michelangelo.
This was a sentence that Michelangelo once wrote in a letter, when he had lived almost seventy-five years.
You will say that I am old and mad, was what Michelangelo wrote, but I answer that there is no better way of being sane and free from anxiety than by being mad.
On my honor, Michelangelo once wrote that.
As a matter of fact, I am next to positive I would have liked Michelangelo." — David Markson — from Wittgenstein’s Mistress
1. The deepest desire of every person is to like the world on an honest or accurate basis.
2. The greatest danger for a person is to have contempt for the world and what is in it …. Contempt can be defined as the lessening of what is different from oneself as a means of self-increase as one sees it.
3. All beauty is a making one of opposites, and the making one of opposites is what we are going after in ourselves.
— Eli Siegel’s Aesthetic Realism Statement
142. The chastest words I have heard: “Dans le véritable amour c’est l’âme, qui enveloppe le corps.” [“In true love it is the soul that envelops the body.”]
— Friedrich Nietzsche — from Beyond Good and Evil