For every epsilon of licentiousness, there exists a delta of venus, such that...? (as an algebraist, it seems analysts spend an awful lot of time chasing tails!)
I have been brought up in a culture where seduction follows a sequence ("running the bases"); are there cultures where that does not suffice, and seduction requires more sophistication: a net*, say, or even a filter?
* in line with the genre fiction cover kind of net, someone once won a competition we had at uni for "best line to get a member of the appropriate sex into your room" with 75 pound test, eg https://fr.aliexpress.com/i/839412765.html
No, although I do have a fair amount of shelf space devoted to a CS book series (published by that breakaway technical college somewhere in the fens) all of which are in shades of what I would've called green, but a cantab colleague informed me was in fact blue.
One hint too many! I have been taught that "it's ${LOCATION}ing" is the english equivalent of « il pleuvine », and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40244602 ought to have billions and billions of connections. (none of which involve Leontine S)
(as for me, one of my friends is on the faculty, studying among other things quiver varieties, which brings us full circle back to Penelope, who set up the competition with Odysseus' bow. If it were an asian recurve bow, it makes sense that the suitors might've tried to string it backwards, and if it were a horseback bow, the draw weight for its size might easily have been such that only someone who knew the foot trick for stringing would've managed)
Sorry, not Hⁿ (or even Ext), but a particular problem from the bloke who claimed we must (deontic necessity) know and will (dynamic) know. Maybe it would've been clearer as H15/23?
(if we were chemists, H₁₅ would sound very unstable)
So, getting back to lava[0], IIRC I'd already admitted that I needed a weak[1] rhyme for 'Schwoaba' (and having already used most of my mental bandwidth finding 'gutsy' as a syllable-truncation of 'valiant'). But why even mention the valiant Swabian? Because, like grue[2], a Schwabenstreich[3]'s denotation has spatiotemporal bifurcation: outside of Swabia, it's a dumb, ridiculous, idiotic move; inside of Swabia, it's a sly move with a good outcome.
This reminded me strongly of a paragraph from Funakoshi (冨名腰 義珍):
When birds of prey are attacking,
they fly in low without extending their wings.
When wild beasts are about to attack,
they crouch low with their ears close to their heads.
Similarly, when a sage is about to act,
he always appears slightly dull.
By looking at the untranslated original[4,5] (1935)[6], we can see by the lack of hiragana that he's probably quoting a chinese source[7,8].
After having translated to simplified characters, and thanks to a literary search engine, I found the referent[9]:
鸷鸟将击，卑飞敛翼；
猛兽将搏，弭耳俯伏；
圣人将动，必有愚色。
Which is attributed[A] to Jiang Ziya[B], someone who at first appeared to be taking the Grothendieck Option, but turned out merely to have been waiting for the right delta to strike price in order to exercise the Kolmogorov Option, all along.
[5] in the earlier "8 important phases of Karate" https://archive.org/details/karate-do-kyohan_202203/page/248... I'm not sure what the first 2 are supposed to convey other than the constant waxing and waning (would we now say chaotic time evolution?) of relative concentration, relative strength and weakness, etc? However, all of the last 6 I've encountered in more than one —western origin— agonistic context as well.
[6] note that to better appeal to a mainland audience, by this date Karate (唐手 "Tang[chinese] hand") has already been rebranded as Karate (空手 "empty hand")
[7] indeed, "Shotokan" as the name of the school derives from Gichin's pen name, Shōtō (松涛 "pine billow")[C]
[8] actually Shōtō faithfully gives us the source:《六韬·武韬·发启》but for some reason (Japanese pariochialism? The cold war? or just plain ignorance, as the facing page implies, that the circles indicated sources?) his translator forgot to include it?
[A] even if the book[D] in which this appears dates from 500 years after its supposed author, as the english wp page suspects, it's still worthwhile advice from ~2'500 years bp.
I see that 松 was also the "top grade" of a tripartite rating system (pine, bamboo, rattan: similar to our gold, silver, bronze for a relatively metal-poor society?); Funakoshi studied two other schools of karate before inventing what we know as Shotokan[E], so might his pupils have named the dojo "Shotokan" not only after him, but also with the idea that it (pine) improved upon its (bamboo and rattan) ancestors?
[D] https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/六韜#豹韜 . I have yet to delve into this, but supposedly a fair amount of it is supposed to be about first (a) laying the groundwork, and then (b) reaping the rewards when[F] the moment is propitious.
[E] in which he never awarded himself more than a 5-dan; see the 2nd idiom in [B].
[F] compare von Seydlitz, or Grothendieck's "when the time is ripe, hand pressure is enough"?
I'm reading those last 16 (out of context, with minimal hanzi-fu) as:
天道無殃，heaven's-way no harm
不可先倡；cannot initiate
人道無災，people's-way no disaster
不可先謀。cannot plan
(Following the) way of heaven: come out unscathed, but we (neither heavenly nor omniscient) can't even start upon this path. (Following the) way of humanity: (suffer setbacks but) no disasters, we (can trace out these paths by seizing* opportunities and avoiding calamities, but) can't plan (our exact steps in advance).
Circling back to Turing: the gods can solve the halting problem, but we just have to evaluate the small-step semantics and see what happens?
I have been brought up in a culture where seduction follows a sequence ("running the bases"); are there cultures where that does not suffice, and seduction requires more sophistication: a net*, say, or even a filter?
* in line with the genre fiction cover kind of net, someone once won a competition we had at uni for "best line to get a member of the appropriate sex into your room" with 75 pound test, eg https://fr.aliexpress.com/i/839412765.html
Lagniappe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK9nx7e9IGM (Scholes, Meriwether, and Merton would've done well to listen more to this one?)