Gary_Yngve

Chuck, I had heard that Boving died on Thin Fingers but never heard the details. For me, the bouldery move is maybe three feet off the ground, highstepping and then standing on it. I can't do it, so I do the weenie right-side variation. I suppose that without a hardhat, an unlucky fall, and maybe some weird stuff with the rope, a head could get fatally levered into the rock. Creepy.

I think the interesting comparison is Thin Fingers vs Sloe Children. For Thin Fingers, the move is way harder than the rest of the climb, and because it's just a few feet above a flat ledge, the likelihood of injury is low. For Sloe Children, the move is not hard -- just balancy -- and is definitely easier than the several possible cruxes above. Seems to me like the risk of injury could be a little greater, as you're off to the side and your belayer is in the way too. But in either case, the starts are uncharacteristic of the rest of the routes.

That's a neat quote. During the first part of this century, a bunch of mathematicians and philosphers were struggling with concepts of math being inconsistent or incomplete, that there are things that math and science won't be able to do. I can only imagine how Russell felt when he discovered his simple paradox. That same line of thinking later led to some classic results in the theory of computation.

How 'bout the O&T downtown? I'll definitely be needing a beer and/or a hug by tomorrow evening, depending on the severity of the disk failure I had today.

Communication is easily effected with two digits.

The road that goes to the TH for Mt. Forgotten. I assume that's the Perry Creek Road you refer to.

The next time you go climbing, use two digits instead of ten. Let me know how hard it is.

Some mathematicians do believe computers are aid. I personally believe those mathematicians are old-fashioned. Here's a great quote from a proof of the four-color theorem: We should mention that both our programs use only integer arithmetic, and so we need not be concerned with round-off errors and similar dangers of floating point arithmetic. However, an argument can be made that our `proof' is not a proof in the traditional sense, because it contains steps that can never be verified by humans. In particular, we have not proved the correctness of the compiler we compiled our programs on, nor have we proved the infallibility of the hardware we ran our programs on. These have to be taken on faith, and are conceivably a source of error. However, from a practical point of view, the chance of a computer error that appears consistently in exactly the same way on all runs of our programs on all the compilers under all the operating systems that our programs run on is infinitesimally small compared to the chance of a human error during the same amount of case-checking. Apart from this hypothetical possibility of a computer consistently giving an incorrect answer, the rest of our proof can be verified in the same way as traditional mathematical proofs. We concede, however, that verifying a computer program is much more difficult than checking a mathematical proof of the same length.

The relevance of this quote would be to the ability to visualize and simulate code inside your head. Just as phone numbers are seven digits because it's hard for us to remember more, there's only so much we can keep track of in our heads.

is open to barlow pass mt forgotten road is drivable to TH given a sufficient combination of 4wd / chains / skill.

I'm not well-versed in movies. If Stand and Deliver is something you think I'll like, I'll check it out.

Oh please, computer science and information systems are different. That's like saying that math and actuarial science are the same. My PhD work relies heavily on math and physics. I prefer the applied nature of CS -- that I can produce something useful -- which isn't necessarily true of math. Here's a quote by the late great Edsger Dijkstra: "Programming is one of the most difficult branches of applied mathematics; the poorer mathematicians had better remain pure mathematicians."

I believe there's a classic photo of me that some folks like to continually repost

Granite near Renton, bigwall near B'ham I've heard Twight's explanation from his show, and I've heard a totally different version from another celebrated climber.

Hang on. It's quite possible that you were a few days too late for Fall, and I just recieved Winter this week. I'd imagine mail has a little more delay for you. Also, you should be able to check your subscription via a web form.

So Poopie ran away from his own thread? I really wanted to know what he thought of Dana's Arch. btw - AlpineK - that was hilarious.

Eh, take your 37, multiply it by an 18, and go to hell.

Yes, Dru, I recognized that 1337 is "leet" and is 13*100+17. But I have a problem that when I see a 3- or 4-digit number, I try to factor it.

crap, now you're making me play the factor-in-your-head game... 7 191 (When I'm trying to make time go by on a painfully long approach/deproach, I compute primes in order in my head. It's nice, because the problem goes on forever, steadily increasing in difficulty, as opposed to something finite like naming all the states in alphabetical order.)

I thought it was a cute comment. But did they honestly skip it because 13 is an unlucky number? That's kinda ethnocentric. The Italians think 13 is lucky, and 17 (my fave number) unlucky. The Japanese think 4 is unlucky.

lim 3 = ? w->oo

doesn't sound like a fun day No it doesn't. As my math is infallible, it must mean, then, that the assumption Men/X > Gary is wrong.

nice, i too missed that fracture line in the first image.

They most certainly don't have to be in my same area (and I probably wouldn't want same area), but it would need to be in some science-related area. I don't think I'd do well with a brilliant writer.

If Gary is positive, then a cube of men over Gary > X X X.