Fer sure. That model looks like he could use a gym and some sunshine :p
Shouldn't that be an error? :DQuote:
tshirt.cpp: warning: 'obscure programming joke' undefined
Yeah, but I thought about the consequences, and decided that the shirt wouldn't exist should there be an error. So the shirt compiled, but there's no joke on it. Well, technically there is... it's sort of a paradox.Quote:
Shouldn't that be an error?
How bad will it be if someone tells you "Dude, you have one big bug on your t-shirt!"?
"This t-shirt intentionally left blank"
// TODO: Add something cool here.
Some of my fav coding t-shirts that I've seen at work:
I'm not slacking off...my code is compiling.
Bubba: Do I have your permission to use that one?
I think I'd go with that on back and a more simplified formulation of the P v NP problem on front (namely P not equal NP rather than the set-theoretical one with NPC)
Aisthesis has discovered a truly marvelous proof of that, but the T-shirt is too narrow to contain it.Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidP
BTW, defending P != NP makes as much sense as defending P = NP, which is: It makes no sense at all.
P != NP appears to me also very self-conceited by treating current human abilities as pretty much all we ever need in order to advance science indefinitely. It also brushes against my own nihilistic beliefs.
Regardless, supporting one position or another without what constitutes yet real proof is definitely rather unscientific. You may as well put malformed code on the back of the t-shirt to go with it. It would be more coherent.
And, btw, by believing in P != NP without the ability to prove it, one is in fact making a strong case for P = NP.
EDIT: Eh, seems DavidP had the same thought while i was writing this. This post is meant for Aisthesis.
I do not see how that is the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
Anyway, an easy fix is to ask instead: P = NP ?