Event Pokemon Spamzone!

This is totally gonna be in black and white.

http://www.funnyjunk.com/showcomment/8086552/

Its a gif, so I cant post it as an image file. So, OPEN IT.

 

I admit, I lol'd.

 

I don't get it.

 

Just some science/math humor added to Pokemon. Nerds like me love those kinds of jokes.

 

I tried looking up Klein Bottle. My head just exploded a little.

 

From what I understand, you get a rectangle, and turn it into a cylinder (Simple enough, unless you're stupid) and then take that cyclinder and turn it into what people would consider an optical illusion, (Because it's not possible in our universe)

 

I think I understand it as well as I'm going to at the moment. I think one of the hardest points is visualizing this thing because from an internet search you get a two dimensional image that represents a three dimensional object that represents a four dimensional object. BTW I love the site I quoted earlier, heres a part of their disclaimer page.

 

You know, it is actually starting to go in that direction. N carries a Void Cube. Kind of a flimsy reference, but in a few more generations' time we might need a 4DS to play Pokemon.

 

Or maybe, pokemon will be playing us...

 

In Sforzato's example of 4D pokemon we would be the lesser existance.

 

Based on what?

 

Dimensionality. We exist in three dimensions so if they existed in four they would be more advanced. Just the same way that I can say that a cube is more advanced than a square.

 

Wouldn't we have to have a real grasp of the 4 dimensions to have a "4DS"?

 

Yeah, I was about to say. We made a lot of things that can do things better than us, does that mean we're lesser?

 

I never said the example wasn't paradoxical

In those specific reguards, yes. In overall value, not necessarily. But you do have to draw the line in the sand somewhere. When we can create things that supersede us in enough ways then at some point I do think we would be considered worse than what we created. I personally hope we get into biomechanics before that point.

 

So Seinfeld is worse than every sitcom that came after it, then?

 

So, 5 Regions so far, geez, i remember when it was just Kanto.

 

Pfft. Back on topic?

 

That is qualitative, so that statement could be true or false for any given person and really in the end doesn't mean much. Chronology has nothing to do with it. Quantitative subjects though, that is an entirely different story.

But lets use an old-school computers topic. Arithmetic. First off if you look at error count or speed of calculation computers have been beating us by a landslide for years. But then as you progress into hard and harder levels of math you'll find that computers have a hard time with it. You end up with estimates instead of answers and input strings long enough that you might as well solve the problem by hand. So then which is better at math, humans or machines? That is an easily debatable answer. But if we continue to advance computers they will surely reach a point where they could do even the most advanced problems. At that point there is no contest. "I taught you that" does absolutely nothing to detract from the data, the computer would be better in all aspects of math than humans. I'm stating exactly that on a larger scale. As machines grow smarter, faster, and stronger (unless we start upgrading our human forms as well) the machines will surely reach a point where they are better than us. Again that is all Quantitatively. Even from a technical standpoint it is hard to contend that one painting is better than another so there are respects that machines can never "surpass us" on qualitative feats.

 

Divide by zero-->