What defines a Nerd?

Plunky

crash_000 wrote:

try living in dublin...

*throws bricks in the general vicinity of Central Bank*

It wasn't me!

They can't hang around the Bank anymore. A group of neo-nazi scummers has taken to patrolling it occasionally and they don't take kindly to mini-metallers. Blast today was full of them though, all acting stereotypically. Reminds me why I stopped going. Anyone going to Open Jazz '05 on sunday by the way?

Crash

Hrmmm - just looking at that - will be on my way back through town around when it kicks off so it sounds good

It wasn't me!

I went last year and it was stunning. I strongly recommend going if you can, and it sounds even better this year. I'm definitely going if at all possible.

Liquorice

I should be going...anyone know what the quality of the bands is like in the Grattan on Sunday evenings btw?

And there is no way to define a nerd through image, interests etc., although there are some general interests such as roleplaying, anime, computers & technology, comic-book reading.

edibility

Gummybearz!!! wrote:

I like the venn diagram idea. Try and put everyone into some little circle 'Likes rock music' 'Plays rugby' pretty soon these circles will start to intersect and it will get to the point where everyone is in their own little point of intersection of a lot of categories and we find out how individual everyone actually is.

I hope that made sense

Venn Diagram - Nerd.

lucernarian

I think this is a pretty good thread because it leads people to question individuality, or lack thereof in themselves, other people or simply society in general. To classify people, i.e. the venn diagram idea, is a good one yet a flawed one. People will always teeter on the edge of the "circles" and few will fall entirely into one circle, yet it can be an accurate way of describing people. I find it ironic though that many theories on individuality are based on a few stereotypical images of "groups" within society.

As for myself, I am basically notorious in my area for looking completely different to my friends/acquaintances etc. as they would lean towards the (grey) area of "rockers etc." I dont know if I'm too lazy to "be like others" or truly am "individual".

Undergod

crash_000 wrote:

try living in dublin...

I'd really rather not.

**** the revolution, nonconformity is now a product to be consumed. Choose conformity! That'll confuse people!

Bazookatone

Plunky wrote:

Back in the day there were more, many more... check your history before accusing Jack of idiocy!

Thank you.

wayfarer

Bazookatone wrote:

I can visualise a sort of exotic, three dimensional graph or a big Venn Diagram, but with spheres instead of circles, where a person can be plotted via some strange co ordinate system based on the above parameters, and their exact position determined ie someone who's uber "goth" would be in one corner, while an uber "chav" would be in the exact opposite corner. "Rockers" and "skaters" would be near the goth area, because there's some crossover, while sporty "Rugger Buggers" and "pretty boys" would be nearer the chav end of the spectrum. But it's complicated, because you could possibly have someone, for example, who's a skater and a pretty boy, and someone who's a rugger bugger and a "chav" (eg Colin Farrell). But it's impossible to have a goth chav, because if two ever come into contact they ,literally, annhialate each other!

Can you explain what the difference is between what can be represented on a venn diagram with 3 dimensions and that which can be represented on the standard 2 dimensional one

Bazookatone

Well, imagine a 2-d Venn diagram with four main circles. Now, each circle intersects the two on each side, but only intersects the third in the centre, where all three cross. So the circle which are on opposite sides only intersect at the centre. But things can only be shown to be in the centre if they exist in all four sets. Therefore something that exists in one set, and also in the set represented by the opposite circle, but NOT in any other set, it couldnt be represented in a 2-d Venn diagram.

I'm not sure, but if it were a 3-d diagram, the "spheres" (instead of circles) could possibly intersect, if they were arranged like a pyramid with four corners.

To be honest, I just think a 3-d Venn diagram would look cooler, especially if the background looked like a scene out of TRON, with a grid of green lines and exotic 3-d shapes flying about.

Kitsune

You can have a four set Venn diagram, just use ellipses instead of circles.

wayfarer

Bazookatone wrote:

Well, imagine a 2-d Venn diagram with four main circles. Now, each circle intersects the two on each side, but only intersects the third in the centre, where all three cross. So the circle which are on opposite sides only intersect at the centre. But things can only be shown to be in the centre if they exist in all four sets. Therefore something that exists in one set, and also in the set represented by the opposite circle, but NOT in any other set, it couldnt be represented in a 2-d Venn diagram.

Bazookatone wrote:

To be honest, I just think a 3-d Venn diagram would look cooler, especially if the background looked like a scene out of TRON, with a grid of green lines and exotic 3-d shapes flying about.

Your right there though, 3d venn diagrams are cool! :rolleyes:

StupidLikeAFox

If ya ask me, discussing how to draw venn diagrams is pretty damn nerdy

It wasn't me!

Yeah, but I have to point out one flaw. Wayfarer's diagram doesn't show the four intersecting at any point. That's why you need a 3D one. In a 2D diagram, the four circles can't intersect at all.

StupidLikeAFox

The ellipses turned me on tbh

Aoibheann

I'll BET they do...

PurpleFistMixer

In the ellipse one the 4 intersect. However for this question you'd need a lot more than 4 sets.

StupidLikeAFox

Aoibheann Brady wrote:

I'll BET they do...

B subsection C
C union A
#C, U'

<ejaculates>


oops

Bazookatone

ColHol wrote:

If ya ask me, discussing how to draw venn diagrams is pretty damn nerdy

And yet we continue to discuss Venn Diagrams.

Crash

If you were to use a n dimensional karnaugh map, which can also be represented as an n-dimensional hypercube with intersection points equating to dimension of the map.

(anyone thinking of doing cs at any point...HAVE FUN!) :P

Scarinae

crash_000 wrote:

If you were to use a n dimensional karnaugh map, which can also be represented as an n-dimensional hypercube with intersection points equating to dimension of the map.

Durrrr??

Caoimhe

The answer is pi!!!!

PurpleFistMixer

No, the answer is pie.

Scarinae

Mmmmmmm... Pie.....

Aoibheann

PurpleFistMixer wrote:

No, the answer is pie.

The answer is always pie..

Jim_Are_Great

PI IS EXACTLY THREE!!!

Crash

hehe, knew that'd change the conversation

Raphael

Jim_Are_Great wrote:

PI IS EXACTLY THREE!!!

Not yet, but people were working on changing it at one stage

Undergod

crash_000 wrote:

If you were to use a n dimensional karnaugh map, which can also be represented as an n-dimensional hypercube with intersection points equating to dimension of the map.

Ever see that formula about multi-dimensional squares? Take a zero-dimensional shape, a point, and it has one boundary (a zero-dimensional point). Now extend that into a line. It has two zero-dimensional boudaries (two points) and one 1-dimensional boundary, the line itself.

A square has four zero-dimensional bounaries, four one dimensional boundaries, and one two-dimensional boundary.

A cube has eight zero-dimensional boundaries, twelve one-dimensional boundraies, six two dimensional boundaries and one three-dimensional boundary.

The formula is (2x+1) to the power of y, where y is tthe number of dimensions.

So (2x+1) to the power of three is equal to 8xcubed + 12xsquared + 6x + 1, giving us the boundaries of a square.

I was going to post about this on the Maths forum, but as far as I know its kinda useless...