geekhack
geekhack Community => Off Topic => Topic started by: tp4tissue on Sat, 12 January 2013, 05:48:33
-
I've been a 'fattie for the past 3 months.. :))
Current maximum is 19 pullups/chinups 'both', down from 28 :(
What do other geekhackers scores? :)
-
If your chin has to be above the bar, mine would be around 10.
If only forhead needed to touch the bar, I could do 25 ;D
-
If your chin has to be above the bar, mine would be around 10.
If only forhead needed to touch the bar, I could do 25 ;D
how much do you weigh?
-
~125 :D
-
Since this will inevitably lead to a childish pissing contest with people increasingly exaggerating/inflating/outright lying about their numbers, I'm just going to cut straight ahead and say a trillion.
-
12 million
do you even lift?
-
Since this will inevitably lead to a childish pissing contest with people increasingly exaggerating/inflating/outright lying about their numbers, I'm just going to cut straight ahead and say a trillion.
Infinity, I Win :-*
-
Since this will inevitably lead to a childish pissing contest with people increasingly exaggerating/inflating/outright lying about their numbers, I'm just going to cut straight ahead and say a trillion.
Infinity, I Win :-*
"some infinities are larger than others"
Hence, I can do infinite pull-ups.
-
Since this will inevitably lead to a childish pissing contest with people increasingly exaggerating/inflating/outright lying about their numbers, I'm just going to cut straight ahead and say a trillion.
Infinity, I Win :-*
"some infinities are larger than others"
Hence, I can do infinite pull-ups.
False. All infinities are the same, don't get into this argument with me, I will win <3
-
Since this will inevitably lead to a childish pissing contest with people increasingly exaggerating/inflating/outright lying about their numbers, I'm just going to cut straight ahead and say a trillion.
Infinity, I Win :-*
"some infinities are larger than others"
Hence, I can do infinite pull-ups.
False. All infinities are the same, don't get into this argument with me, I will win <3
False. Hint: cardinality.
-
Since this will inevitably lead to a childish pissing contest with people increasingly exaggerating/inflating/outright lying about their numbers, I'm just going to cut straight ahead and say a trillion.
Infinity, I Win :-*
"some infinities are larger than others"
Hence, I can do infinite pull-ups.
False. All infinities are the same, don't get into this argument with me, I will win <3
False. Hint: cardinality.
false, accountability is an "Illusion"
bunch of fat nerds.... :D
-
Since this will inevitably lead to a childish pissing contest with people increasingly exaggerating/inflating/outright lying about their numbers, I'm just going to cut straight ahead and say a trillion.
Infinity, I Win :-*
"some infinities are larger than others"
Hence, I can do infinite pull-ups.
False. All infinities are the same, don't get into this argument with me, I will win <3
False. Hint: cardinality.
By theory you would think that one infinity could be larger than another, but by definition infinity is an ever changing number;
therefore uncountable, therefore infinity can not be designated as one number- ever.
-
I can't and have never been able to do a single one. And I do lift xD.
-
I can't and have never been able to do a single one. And I do lift xD.
Hmm... So you're saying guys in Norway can get a GF without being pullup capable?
I find this suspiciously suspicious.
-
false, accountability is an "Illusion"
bunch of fat nerds.... :D
Since this will inevitably lead to a childish pissing contest with people increasingly exaggerating/inflating/outright lying about their numbers, I'm just going to cut straight ahead and say a trillion.
Infinity, I Win :-*
"some infinities are larger than others"
Hence, I can do infinite pull-ups.
False. All infinities are the same, don't get into this argument with me, I will win <3
False. Hint: cardinality.
By theory you would think that one infinity could be larger than another, but by definition infinity is an ever changing number;
therefore uncountable, therefore infinity can not be designated as one number- ever.
Cantor's diagonal argument
-
I can't and have never been able to do a single one. And I do lift xD.
Hmm... So you're saying guys in Norway can get a GF without being pullup capable?
I find this suspiciously suspicious.
It's because I'm half French. The chicks dig the charm.
-
Same here (french but not from france). Still I can do some, prob like 8-10 chinup (full) and 30-40 push ups. I need to train again and lose that 20 extra pounds...
-
false, accountability is an "Illusion"
bunch of fat nerds.... :D
Since this will inevitably lead to a childish pissing contest with people increasingly exaggerating/inflating/outright lying about their numbers, I'm just going to cut straight ahead and say a trillion.
Infinity, I Win :-*
"some infinities are larger than others"
Hence, I can do infinite pull-ups.
False. All infinities are the same, don't get into this argument with me, I will win <3
False. Hint: cardinality.
By theory you would think that one infinity could be larger than another, but by definition infinity is an ever changing number;
therefore uncountable, therefore infinity can not be designated as one number- ever.
Cantor's diagonal argument
Objection... Irrelevant.
This is related to probability and sequences, and only suggests "counting" infinity by excluding certain impossible future patterns.
-
false, accountability is an "Illusion"
bunch of fat nerds.... :D
Since this will inevitably lead to a childish pissing contest with people increasingly exaggerating/inflating/outright lying about their numbers, I'm just going to cut straight ahead and say a trillion.
Infinity, I Win :-*
"some infinities are larger than others"
Hence, I can do infinite pull-ups.
False. All infinities are the same, don't get into this argument with me, I will win <3
False. Hint: cardinality.
By theory you would think that one infinity could be larger than another, but by definition infinity is an ever changing number;
therefore uncountable, therefore infinity can not be designated as one number- ever.
Cantor's diagonal argument
Objection... Irrelevant.
This is related to probability and sequences, and only suggests "counting" infinity by excluding certain impossible future patterns.
WAT? The set of naturals is infinite, and so is the set of real numbers. However, cardinalities of those two sets are different — as proven by Cantor. Hence, these two "infinities" have to be different.
-
false, accountability is an "Illusion"
bunch of fat nerds.... :D
Since this will inevitably lead to a childish pissing contest with people increasingly exaggerating/inflating/outright lying about their numbers, I'm just going to cut straight ahead and say a trillion.
Infinity, I Win :-*
"some infinities are larger than others"
Hence, I can do infinite pull-ups.
False. All infinities are the same, don't get into this argument with me, I will win <3
False. Hint: cardinality.
By theory you would think that one infinity could be larger than another, but by definition infinity is an ever changing number;
therefore uncountable, therefore infinity can not be designated as one number- ever.
Cantor's diagonal argument
Objection... Irrelevant.
This is related to probability and sequences, and only suggests "counting" infinity by excluding certain impossible future patterns.
WAT? The set of naturals is infinite, and so is the set of real numbers. However, cardinalities of those two sets are different — as proven by Cantor. Hence, these two "infinities" have to be different.
This will end in a philosophical debate...
Because it boils down to what "YOU" choose as the meaning for infinity...
-
false, accountability is an "Illusion"
bunch of fat nerds.... :D
Since this will inevitably lead to a childish pissing contest with people increasingly exaggerating/inflating/outright lying about their numbers, I'm just going to cut straight ahead and say a trillion.
Infinity, I Win :-*
"some infinities are larger than others"
Hence, I can do infinite pull-ups.
False. All infinities are the same, don't get into this argument with me, I will win <3
False. Hint: cardinality.
By theory you would think that one infinity could be larger than another, but by definition infinity is an ever changing number;
therefore uncountable, therefore infinity can not be designated as one number- ever.
Cantor's diagonal argument
Objection... Irrelevant.
This is related to probability and sequences, and only suggests "counting" infinity by excluding certain impossible future patterns.
WAT? The set of naturals is infinite, and so is the set of real numbers. However, cardinalities of those two sets are different — as proven by Cantor. Hence, these two "infinities" have to be different.
This will end in a philosophical debate...
Because it boils down to what "YOU" choose as the meaning for infinity...
No. This is math, not philosophy.
-
false, accountability is an "Illusion"
bunch of fat nerds.... :D
Since this will inevitably lead to a childish pissing contest with people increasingly exaggerating/inflating/outright lying about their numbers, I'm just going to cut straight ahead and say a trillion.
Infinity, I Win :-*
"some infinities are larger than others"
Hence, I can do infinite pull-ups.
False. All infinities are the same, don't get into this argument with me, I will win <3
False. Hint: cardinality.
By theory you would think that one infinity could be larger than another, but by definition infinity is an ever changing number;
therefore uncountable, therefore infinity can not be designated as one number- ever.
Cantor's diagonal argument
Objection... Irrelevant.
This is related to probability and sequences, and only suggests "counting" infinity by excluding certain impossible future patterns.
WAT? The set of naturals is infinite, and so is the set of real numbers. However, cardinalities of those two sets are different — as proven by Cantor. Hence, these two "infinities" have to be different.
This will end in a philosophical debate...
Because it boils down to what "YOU" choose as the meaning for infinity...
No. This is math, not philosophy.
math is at it's heart philosophical...
-
math is at it's heart philosophical...
Q: What is the difference between a mathematician and a philosopher?
A: The mathematician only needs paper, pencil, and a trash bin for his work - the philosopher can do without the trash bin...
-
Leave it to nerds to take something about lifting weights and make it into something about math.
Edit: And yes, your body is the weight being lifted ;).
-
Ouch - I can do about ten using a door (no pull-up bar) before my hands get sore, no idea how many my arms could take, but not as much as back in my "prime" anyway :rolleyes:
-
false, accountability is an "Illusion"
bunch of fat nerds.... :D
Since this will inevitably lead to a childish pissing contest with people increasingly exaggerating/inflating/outright lying about their numbers, I'm just going to cut straight ahead and say a trillion.
Infinity, I Win :-*
"some infinities are larger than others"
Hence, I can do infinite pull-ups.
False. All infinities are the same, don't get into this argument with me, I will win <3
False. Hint: cardinality.
By theory you would think that one infinity could be larger than another, but by definition infinity is an ever changing number;
therefore uncountable, therefore infinity can not be designated as one number- ever.
Cantor's diagonal argument
Objection... Irrelevant.
This is related to probability and sequences, and only suggests "counting" infinity by excluding certain impossible future patterns.
WAT? The set of naturals is infinite, and so is the set of real numbers. However, cardinalities of those two sets are different — as proven by Cantor. Hence, these two "infinities" have to be different.
Right; even though these ininities would consist of different numbers, they are still uncountable, still infinity. I admit to having misspoken earlier because it is quite obvious that all infinities are not the same
(for example there is an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1, and an infinite amount of numbers between 10 and 1,000,000, and these are obviouls not the same infinites)
I was merely over-generalizing, assuming that we were talking about an infinity starting at one and leading on past the trillions and presumably forever.
Your point is correct, but again irrelevant to what I was trying to point out, in which I failed to be as clear as I should have.
Leave it to nerds to take something about lifting weights and make it into something about math.
What do you expect? This is GeekHack.org xD
-
false, accountability is an "Illusion"
bunch of fat nerds.... :D
Since this will inevitably lead to a childish pissing contest with people increasingly exaggerating/inflating/outright lying about their numbers, I'm just going to cut straight ahead and say a trillion.
Infinity, I Win :-*
"some infinities are larger than others"
Hence, I can do infinite pull-ups.
False. All infinities are the same, don't get into this argument with me, I will win <3
False. Hint: cardinality.
By theory you would think that one infinity could be larger than another, but by definition infinity is an ever changing number;
therefore uncountable, therefore infinity can not be designated as one number- ever.
Cantor's diagonal argument
Objection... Irrelevant.
This is related to probability and sequences, and only suggests "counting" infinity by excluding certain impossible future patterns.
WAT? The set of naturals is infinite, and so is the set of real numbers. However, cardinalities of those two sets are different — as proven by Cantor. Hence, these two "infinities" have to be different.
Right; even though these ininities would consist of different numbers, they are still uncountable, still infinity. I admit to having misspoken earlier because it is quite obvious that all infinities are not the same
(for example there is an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1, and an infinite amount of numbers between 10 and 1,000,000, and these are obviouls not the same infinites)
I was merely over-generalizing, assuming that we were talking about an infinity starting at one and leading on past the trillions and presumably forever.
Your point is correct, but again irrelevant to what I was trying to point out, in which I failed to be as clear as I should have.
Actually, naturals are infinite and countable. ^_^
-
false, accountability is an "Illusion"
bunch of fat nerds.... :D
Since this will inevitably lead to a childish pissing contest with people increasingly exaggerating/inflating/outright lying about their numbers, I'm just going to cut straight ahead and say a trillion.
Infinity, I Win :-*
"some infinities are larger than others"
Hence, I can do infinite pull-ups.
False. All infinities are the same, don't get into this argument with me, I will win <3
False. Hint: cardinality.
By theory you would think that one infinity could be larger than another, but by definition infinity is an ever changing number;
therefore uncountable, therefore infinity can not be designated as one number- ever.
Cantor's diagonal argument
Objection... Irrelevant.
This is related to probability and sequences, and only suggests "counting" infinity by excluding certain impossible future patterns.
WAT? The set of naturals is infinite, and so is the set of real numbers. However, cardinalities of those two sets are different — as proven by Cantor. Hence, these two "infinities" have to be different.
Right; even though these ininities would consist of different numbers, they are still uncountable, still infinity. I admit to having misspoken earlier because it is quite obvious that all infinities are not the same
(for example there is an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1, and an infinite amount of numbers between 10 and 1,000,000, and these are obviouls not the same infinites)
I was merely over-generalizing, assuming that we were talking about an infinity starting at one and leading on past the trillions and presumably forever.
Your point is correct, but again irrelevant to what I was trying to point out, in which I failed to be as clear as I should have.
Actually, naturals are infinite and countable. ^_^
The definition of an infinite is to be uncountable T_T
Explain...
-
false, accountability is an "Illusion"
bunch of fat nerds.... :D
Since this will inevitably lead to a childish pissing contest with people increasingly exaggerating/inflating/outright lying about their numbers, I'm just going to cut straight ahead and say a trillion.
Infinity, I Win :-*
"some infinities are larger than others"
Hence, I can do infinite pull-ups.
False. All infinities are the same, don't get into this argument with me, I will win <3
False. Hint: cardinality.
By theory you would think that one infinity could be larger than another, but by definition infinity is an ever changing number;
therefore uncountable, therefore infinity can not be designated as one number- ever.
Cantor's diagonal argument
Objection... Irrelevant.
This is related to probability and sequences, and only suggests "counting" infinity by excluding certain impossible future patterns.
WAT? The set of naturals is infinite, and so is the set of real numbers. However, cardinalities of those two sets are different — as proven by Cantor. Hence, these two "infinities" have to be different.
Right; even though these ininities would consist of different numbers, they are still uncountable, still infinity. I admit to having misspoken earlier because it is quite obvious that all infinities are not the same
(for example there is an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1, and an infinite amount of numbers between 10 and 1,000,000, and these are obviouls not the same infinites)
I was merely over-generalizing, assuming that we were talking about an infinity starting at one and leading on past the trillions and presumably forever.
Your point is correct, but again irrelevant to what I was trying to point out, in which I failed to be as clear as I should have.
Actually, naturals are infinite and countable. ^_^
The definition of an infinite is to be uncountable T_T
Explain...
No. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countable_set)
-
false, accountability is an "Illusion"
bunch of fat nerds.... :D
Since this will inevitably lead to a childish pissing contest with people increasingly exaggerating/inflating/outright lying about their numbers, I'm just going to cut straight ahead and say a trillion.
Infinity, I Win :-*
"some infinities are larger than others"
Hence, I can do infinite pull-ups.
False. All infinities are the same, don't get into this argument with me, I will win <3
False. Hint: cardinality.
By theory you would think that one infinity could be larger than another, but by definition infinity is an ever changing number;
therefore uncountable, therefore infinity can not be designated as one number- ever.
Cantor's diagonal argument
Objection... Irrelevant.
This is related to probability and sequences, and only suggests "counting" infinity by excluding certain impossible future patterns.
WAT? The set of naturals is infinite, and so is the set of real numbers. However, cardinalities of those two sets are different — as proven by Cantor. Hence, these two "infinities" have to be different.
Right; even though these ininities would consist of different numbers, they are still uncountable, still infinity. I admit to having misspoken earlier because it is quite obvious that all infinities are not the same
(for example there is an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1, and an infinite amount of numbers between 10 and 1,000,000, and these are obviouls not the same infinites)
I was merely over-generalizing, assuming that we were talking about an infinity starting at one and leading on past the trillions and presumably forever.
Your point is correct, but again irrelevant to what I was trying to point out, in which I failed to be as clear as I should have.
Actually, naturals are infinite and countable. ^_^
The definition of an infinite is to be uncountable T_T
Explain...
No. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countable_set)
Since infinity is ever-changing, you can never stop it to actually be able to decipher what number it would be "on". You can predict, but you cannot count.
-
So how much do you guys that do 15+ weigh?
-
I'd be able to break fifteen if I had a bar, and I'm 65Kg.
-
Since this will inevitably lead to a childish pissing contest with people increasingly exaggerating/inflating/outright lying about their numbers, I'm just going to cut straight ahead and say a trillion.
Infinity, I Win :-*
and this man calls others insane.
edit: reading further, i guess he thinks that infinity is not equal to infinity -- good to see he continually redefines the rules of reality to fit his own cognitive distortion.
sociopaths these days, sheesh.
-
false, accountability is an "Illusion"
bunch of fat nerds.... :D
Since this will inevitably lead to a childish pissing contest with people increasingly exaggerating/inflating/outright lying about their numbers, I'm just going to cut straight ahead and say a trillion.
Infinity, I Win :-*
"some infinities are larger than others"
Hence, I can do infinite pull-ups.
False. All infinities are the same, don't get into this argument with me, I will win <3
False. Hint: cardinality.
By theory you would think that one infinity could be larger than another, but by definition infinity is an ever changing number;
therefore uncountable, therefore infinity can not be designated as one number- ever.
Cantor's diagonal argument
Objection... Irrelevant.
This is related to probability and sequences, and only suggests "counting" infinity by excluding certain impossible future patterns.
WAT? The set of naturals is infinite, and so is the set of real numbers. However, cardinalities of those two sets are different — as proven by Cantor. Hence, these two "infinities" have to be different.
Right; even though these ininities would consist of different numbers, they are still uncountable, still infinity. I admit to having misspoken earlier because it is quite obvious that all infinities are not the same
(for example there is an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1, and an infinite amount of numbers between 10 and 1,000,000, and these are obviouls not the same infinites)
I was merely over-generalizing, assuming that we were talking about an infinity starting at one and leading on past the trillions and presumably forever.
Your point is correct, but again irrelevant to what I was trying to point out, in which I failed to be as clear as I should have.
Actually, naturals are infinite and countable. ^_^
The definition of an infinite is to be uncountable T_T
Explain...
No. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countable_set)
Since infinity is ever-changing, you can never stop it to actually be able to decipher what number it would be "on". You can predict, but you cannot count.
The problem is... your definitions appear to be different from the ones used by the rest of the world. Infinity isn't a number, it isn't a variable that holds a value that is a number.
-
The problem is... your definitions appear to be different from the ones used by the rest of the world. Infinity isn't a number, it isn't a variable that holds a value that is a number.
yeah, he also affirmed at some point that words aren't descriptive of circumstances which exist in an objective, external reality. he thinks he can change the definition of words to suit his own perspective. this guy is literally insane.
he also said that "There is in fact something fundamentally wrong in supporting elitism" and went on to defend someone who was an elitist [quote: "members above 2500 posts are legally immune from threadcrapping allegations"] his response to this person: "You know I was actually supporting you?"
probably some rich idiot in southern california who thinks that reality has some kind of inverse relationship with the balance of a bank account, or whatever.
-
Stop with the excessive quoting already...
-
false, accountability is an "Illusion"
bunch of fat nerds.... :D
Since this will inevitably lead to a childish pissing contest with people increasingly exaggerating/inflating/outright lying about their numbers, I'm just going to cut straight ahead and say a trillion.
Infinity, I Win :-*
"some infinities are larger than others"
Hence, I can do infinite pull-ups.
False. All infinities are the same, don't get into this argument with me, I will win <3
False. Hint: cardinality.
By theory you would think that one infinity could be larger than another, but by definition infinity is an ever changing number;
therefore uncountable, therefore infinity can not be designated as one number- ever.
Cantor's diagonal argument
Objection... Irrelevant.
This is related to probability and sequences, and only suggests "counting" infinity by excluding certain impossible future patterns.
WAT? The set of naturals is infinite, and so is the set of real numbers. However, cardinalities of those two sets are different — as proven by Cantor. Hence, these two "infinities" have to be different.
Right; even though these ininities would consist of different numbers, they are still uncountable, still infinity. I admit to having misspoken earlier because it is quite obvious that all infinities are not the same
(for example there is an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1, and an infinite amount of numbers between 10 and 1,000,000, and these are obviouls not the same infinites)
I was merely over-generalizing, assuming that we were talking about an infinity starting at one and leading on past the trillions and presumably forever.
Your point is correct, but again irrelevant to what I was trying to point out, in which I failed to be as clear as I should have.
Actually, naturals are infinite and countable. ^_^
The definition of an infinite is to be uncountable T_T
Explain...
No. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countable_set)
Since infinity is ever-changing, you can never stop it to actually be able to decipher what number it would be "on". You can predict, but you cannot count.
The problem is... your definitions appear to be different from the ones used by the rest of the world. Infinity isn't a number, it isn't a variable that holds a value that is a number.
Infinity isn't a number... It is a collection of numbers that isn't finite
The problem is... your definitions appear to be different from the ones used by the rest of the world. Infinity isn't a number, it isn't a variable that holds a value that is a number.
yeah, he also affirmed at some point that words aren't descriptive of circumstances which exist in an objective, external reality. he thinks he can change the definition of words to suit his own perspective. this guy is literally insane.
he also said that "There is in fact something fundamentally wrong in supporting elitism" and went on to defend someone who was an elitist [quote: "members above 2500 posts are legally immune from threadcrapping allegations"] his response to this person: "You know I was actually supporting you?"
probably some rich idiot in southern california who thinks that reality has some kind of inverse relationship with the balance of a bank account, or whatever.
Have you ever thought that I am trying to troll you without you knowing? That is the best kind.
-
Have you ever thought that I am trying to troll you without you knowing? That is the best kind.
"Trolling" is a memetic neologism which is unconsciously regurgitated in response to an influx of external stimuli which the observer cannot adequately relate to. The implication is that the observer is insufficient, yet not introspective enough to avoid faulting the precipitating object, as opposed to the true cause of failed comprehension -- himself.
Your use of language is not sufficiently advanced to suggest otherwise. The more popular and frequently used a word becomes, the less it actually means.
Enjoy your maladaptive coping strategy, I guess.
Summarily intellectually decimated.
-
false, accountability is an "Illusion"
bunch of fat nerds.... :D
Since this will inevitably lead to a childish pissing contest with people increasingly exaggerating/inflating/outright lying about their numbers, I'm just going to cut straight ahead and say a trillion.
Infinity, I Win :-*
"some infinities are larger than others"
Hence, I can do infinite pull-ups.
False. All infinities are the same, don't get into this argument with me, I will win <3
False. Hint: cardinality.
By theory you would think that one infinity could be larger than another, but by definition infinity is an ever changing number;
therefore uncountable, therefore infinity can not be designated as one number- ever.
Cantor's diagonal argument
Objection... Irrelevant.
This is related to probability and sequences, and only suggests "counting" infinity by excluding certain impossible future patterns.
WAT? The set of naturals is infinite, and so is the set of real numbers. However, cardinalities of those two sets are different — as proven by Cantor. Hence, these two "infinities" have to be different.
Right; even though these ininities would consist of different numbers, they are still uncountable, still infinity. I admit to having misspoken earlier because it is quite obvious that all infinities are not the same
(for example there is an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1, and an infinite amount of numbers between 10 and 1,000,000, and these are obviouls not the same infinites)
I was merely over-generalizing, assuming that we were talking about an infinity starting at one and leading on past the trillions and presumably forever.
Your point is correct, but again irrelevant to what I was trying to point out, in which I failed to be as clear as I should have.
Actually, naturals are infinite and countable. ^_^
The definition of an infinite is to be uncountable T_T
Explain...
No. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countable_set)
Since infinity is ever-changing, you can never stop it to actually be able to decipher what number it would be "on". You can predict, but you cannot count.
The problem is... your definitions appear to be different from the ones used by the rest of the world. Infinity isn't a number, it isn't a variable that holds a value that is a number.
Infinity isn't a number... It is a collection of numbers that isn't finite
What's a collection? Infinity certainly isn't a set.
Please, can you present your formal definition of infinity?
-
false, accountability is an "Illusion"
bunch of fat nerds.... :D
Since this will inevitably lead to a childish pissing contest with people increasingly exaggerating/inflating/outright lying about their numbers, I'm just going to cut straight ahead and say a trillion.
Infinity, I Win :-*
"some infinities are larger than others"
Hence, I can do infinite pull-ups.
False. All infinities are the same, don't get into this argument with me, I will win <3
False. Hint: cardinality.
By theory you would think that one infinity could be larger than another, but by definition infinity is an ever changing number;
therefore uncountable, therefore infinity can not be designated as one number- ever.
Cantor's diagonal argument
Objection... Irrelevant.
This is related to probability and sequences, and only suggests "counting" infinity by excluding certain impossible future patterns.
WAT? The set of naturals is infinite, and so is the set of real numbers. However, cardinalities of those two sets are different — as proven by Cantor. Hence, these two "infinities" have to be different.
Right; even though these ininities would consist of different numbers, they are still uncountable, still infinity. I admit to having misspoken earlier because it is quite obvious that all infinities are not the same
(for example there is an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1, and an infinite amount of numbers between 10 and 1,000,000, and these are obviouls not the same infinites)
I was merely over-generalizing, assuming that we were talking about an infinity starting at one and leading on past the trillions and presumably forever.
Your point is correct, but again irrelevant to what I was trying to point out, in which I failed to be as clear as I should have.
Actually, naturals are infinite and countable. ^_^
The definition of an infinite is to be uncountable T_T
Explain...
No. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countable_set)
Since infinity is ever-changing, you can never stop it to actually be able to decipher what number it would be "on". You can predict, but you cannot count.
The problem is... your definitions appear to be different from the ones used by the rest of the world. Infinity isn't a number, it isn't a variable that holds a value that is a number.
Infinity isn't a number... It is a collection of numbers that isn't finite
What's a collection? Infinity certainly isn't a set.
Please, can you present your formal definition of infinity?
Supernestingquotes!!!
-
Have you ever thought that I am trying to troll you without you knowing? That is the best kind.
"Trolling" is a memetic neologism which is unconsciously regurgitated in response to an influx of external stimuli which the observer cannot adequately relate to. The implication is that the observer is insufficient, yet not introspective enough to avoid faulting the precipitating object, as opposed to the true cause of failed comprehension -- himself.
Your use of language is not sufficiently advanced to suggest otherwise. The more popular and frequently used a word becomes, the less it actually means.
Enjoy your maladaptive coping strategy, I guess.
Summarily intellectually decimated.
Your argument is infallible, be right back, going to go take my SEROQUEL ^-^
(semantics=wrong, reasoning=wrong, etc.)
false, accountability is an "Illusion"
bunch of fat nerds.... :D
Since this will inevitably lead to a childish pissing contest with people increasingly exaggerating/inflating/outright lying about their numbers, I'm just going to cut straight ahead and say a trillion.
Infinity, I Win :-*
"some infinities are larger than others"
Hence, I can do infinite pull-ups.
False. All infinities are the same, don't get into this argument with me, I will win <3
False. Hint: cardinality.
By theory you would think that one infinity could be larger than another, but by definition infinity is an ever changing number;
therefore uncountable, therefore infinity can not be designated as one number- ever.
Cantor's diagonal argument
Objection... Irrelevant.
This is related to probability and sequences, and only suggests "counting" infinity by excluding certain impossible future patterns.
WAT? The set of naturals is infinite, and so is the set of real numbers. However, cardinalities of those two sets are different — as proven by Cantor. Hence, these two "infinities" have to be different.
Right; even though these ininities would consist of different numbers, they are still uncountable, still infinity. I admit to having misspoken earlier because it is quite obvious that all infinities are not the same
(for example there is an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1, and an infinite amount of numbers between 10 and 1,000,000, and these are obviouls not the same infinites)
I was merely over-generalizing, assuming that we were talking about an infinity starting at one and leading on past the trillions and presumably forever.
Your point is correct, but again irrelevant to what I was trying to point out, in which I failed to be as clear as I should have.
Actually, naturals are infinite and countable. ^_^
The definition of an infinite is to be uncountable T_T
Explain...
No. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countable_set)
Since infinity is ever-changing, you can never stop it to actually be able to decipher what number it would be "on". You can predict, but you cannot count.
The problem is... your definitions appear to be different from the ones used by the rest of the world. Infinity isn't a number, it isn't a variable that holds a value that is a number.
Infinity isn't a number... It is a collection of numbers that isn't finite
What's a collection? Infinity certainly isn't a set.
Please, can you present your formal definition of infinity?
First, a collection is defined as: several things grouped together or considered as a whole
And infinity is a collection of an ever-changing amount of numbers, which by definition is uncountable and continues on forever.
-
So how much do you guys that do 15+ weigh?
I'm 135 as of late.. sigh... putting back oatmeal into diet. :'(
-
false, accountability is an "Illusion"
bunch of fat nerds.... :D
Since this will inevitably lead to a childish pissing contest with people increasingly exaggerating/inflating/outright lying about their numbers, I'm just going to cut straight ahead and say a trillion.
Infinity, I Win :-*
"some infinities are larger than others"
Hence, I can do infinite pull-ups.
False. All infinities are the same, don't get into this argument with me, I will win <3
False. Hint: cardinality.
By theory you would think that one infinity could be larger than another, but by definition infinity is an ever changing number;
therefore uncountable, therefore infinity can not be designated as one number- ever.
Cantor's diagonal argument
Objection... Irrelevant.
This is related to probability and sequences, and only suggests "counting" infinity by excluding certain impossible future patterns.
WAT? The set of naturals is infinite, and so is the set of real numbers. However, cardinalities of those two sets are different — as proven by Cantor. Hence, these two "infinities" have to be different.
Right; even though these ininities would consist of different numbers, they are still uncountable, still infinity. I admit to having misspoken earlier because it is quite obvious that all infinities are not the same
(for example there is an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1, and an infinite amount of numbers between 10 and 1,000,000, and these are obviouls not the same infinites)
I was merely over-generalizing, assuming that we were talking about an infinity starting at one and leading on past the trillions and presumably forever.
Your point is correct, but again irrelevant to what I was trying to point out, in which I failed to be as clear as I should have.
Actually, naturals are infinite and countable. ^_^
The definition of an infinite is to be uncountable T_T
Explain...
No. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countable_set)
Since infinity is ever-changing, you can never stop it to actually be able to decipher what number it would be "on". You can predict, but you cannot count.
The problem is... your definitions appear to be different from the ones used by the rest of the world. Infinity isn't a number, it isn't a variable that holds a value that is a number.
Infinity isn't a number... It is a collection of numbers that isn't finite
What's a collection? Infinity certainly isn't a set.
Please, can you present your formal definition of infinity?
First, a collection is defined as: several things grouped together or considered as a whole
And infinity is a collection of an ever-changing amount of numbers, which by definition is uncountable and continues on forever.
How would you define e.g. a limit, then? Or rather... I guess there's no point in discussing this topic further.
-
false, accountability is an "Illusion"
bunch of fat nerds.... :D
Since this will inevitably lead to a childish pissing contest with people increasingly exaggerating/inflating/outright lying about their numbers, I'm just going to cut straight ahead and say a trillion.
Infinity, I Win :-*
"some infinities are larger than others"
Hence, I can do infinite pull-ups.
False. All infinities are the same, don't get into this argument with me, I will win <3
False. Hint: cardinality.
By theory you would think that one infinity could be larger than another, but by definition infinity is an ever changing number;
therefore uncountable, therefore infinity can not be designated as one number- ever.
Cantor's diagonal argument
Objection... Irrelevant.
This is related to probability and sequences, and only suggests "counting" infinity by excluding certain impossible future patterns.
WAT? The set of naturals is infinite, and so is the set of real numbers. However, cardinalities of those two sets are different — as proven by Cantor. Hence, these two "infinities" have to be different.
Right; even though these ininities would consist of different numbers, they are still uncountable, still infinity. I admit to having misspoken earlier because it is quite obvious that all infinities are not the same
(for example there is an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1, and an infinite amount of numbers between 10 and 1,000,000, and these are obviouls not the same infinites)
I was merely over-generalizing, assuming that we were talking about an infinity starting at one and leading on past the trillions and presumably forever.
Your point is correct, but again irrelevant to what I was trying to point out, in which I failed to be as clear as I should have.
Actually, naturals are infinite and countable. ^_^
The definition of an infinite is to be uncountable T_T
Explain...
No. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countable_set)
Since infinity is ever-changing, you can never stop it to actually be able to decipher what number it would be "on". You can predict, but you cannot count.
The problem is... your definitions appear to be different from the ones used by the rest of the world. Infinity isn't a number, it isn't a variable that holds a value that is a number.
Infinity isn't a number... It is a collection of numbers that isn't finite
What's a collection? Infinity certainly isn't a set.
Please, can you present your formal definition of infinity?
First, a collection is defined as: several things grouped together or considered as a whole
And infinity is a collection of an ever-changing amount of numbers, which by definition is uncountable and continues on forever.
How would you define e.g. a limit, then? Or rather... I guess there's no point in discussing this topic further.
The above is the result when 2 trolls collide. ;D
Honestly, does this add more unnecessary load to the server?
-
They're just working their way up to ∞, leave them to it...
-
Everyone who argued about the mathematical definition of infinity in this thread should be banned from the forums forever.
-
false, accountability is an "Illusion"
bunch of fat nerds.... :D
Since this will inevitably lead to a childish pissing contest with people increasingly exaggerating/inflating/outright lying about their numbers, I'm just going to cut straight ahead and say a trillion.
Infinity, I Win :-*
"some infinities are larger than others"
Hence, I can do infinite pull-ups.
False. All infinities are the same, don't get into this argument with me, I will win <3
False. Hint: cardinality.
By theory you would think that one infinity could be larger than another, but by definition infinity is an ever changing number;
therefore uncountable, therefore infinity can not be designated as one number- ever.
Cantor's diagonal argument
Objection... Irrelevant.
This is related to probability and sequences, and only suggests "counting" infinity by excluding certain impossible future patterns.
WAT? The set of naturals is infinite, and so is the set of real numbers. However, cardinalities of those two sets are different — as proven by Cantor. Hence, these two "infinities" have to be different.
Right; even though these ininities would consist of different numbers, they are still uncountable, still infinity. I admit to having misspoken earlier because it is quite obvious that all infinities are not the same
(for example there is an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1, and an infinite amount of numbers between 10 and 1,000,000, and these are obviouls not the same infinites)
I was merely over-generalizing, assuming that we were talking about an infinity starting at one and leading on past the trillions and presumably forever.
Your point is correct, but again irrelevant to what I was trying to point out, in which I failed to be as clear as I should have.
Actually, naturals are infinite and countable. ^_^
The definition of an infinite is to be uncountable T_T
Explain...
No. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countable_set)
Since infinity is ever-changing, you can never stop it to actually be able to decipher what number it would be "on". You can predict, but you cannot count.
The problem is... your definitions appear to be different from the ones used by the rest of the world. Infinity isn't a number, it isn't a variable that holds a value that is a number.
Infinity isn't a number... It is a collection of numbers that isn't finite
What's a collection? Infinity certainly isn't a set.
Please, can you present your formal definition of infinity?
First, a collection is defined as: several things grouped together or considered as a whole
And infinity is a collection of an ever-changing amount of numbers, which by definition is uncountable and continues on forever.
How would you define e.g. a limit, then? Or rather... I guess there's no point in discussing this topic further.
Limits could be used in the case of infinity. For example, I talked about how there is an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1 earlier,
those could associated with a type of asymptote almost, which would be a limit.
And I have no problem discussing this topic further since many suggestions about infinity are based upon theories anyway. Such as your "cardinal infinities".
-
Everyone who argued about the mathematical definition of infinity in this thread should be banned from the forums forever.
like I said, infinity is philosophical.. there's very little "math" to it.
-
Everyone who argued about the mathematical definition of infinity in this thread should be banned from the forums forever.
like I said, infinity is philosophical.. there's very little "math" to it.
Did someone mention philosophy?
One philosophical point that I find many mathematicians (Including my brother, math PhD student) like to ignore is whether or not mathematics is natural or synthetic. I like to think that mathematics is synthetic: IE derived, and therefore infallible. As long as one is clear on one's premises, pure mathematics cannot fail. I have recently come into contact with the philosophical position that mathematics is in fact natural, and exists (or could exist) outside of mankind's influence. I disagree, but one has to be clear on this point (and many others) before any real discussion may be had.
Taking the opposite side from my own position, if Mathematics is natural, we should be able to discover things about it from a naturalistic perspective, and an almost scientific-like approach. Based on this approach, we need only to obverse infinity in nature to make claims on it. Even if (in the philosophically weak case) we presume that even if we cannot perceive infinity in nature, it can still exist, this makes still answers several questions.
Taking my own viewpoint, one merely must lay down their base assumptions, reconcile them with their epistemology, and then build mathematics. Bertrand Russel tried this, and I think I read somewhere that he was unsuccessful. This fact lends credence to the natural mathematics position, but is by no means conclusive. After doing this, you end up with clear logical connections between your premises and conclusions. Arguments against it can only be either: attacking a premise as ridiculous, or finding a logical link to be weak, and pointing that out.
This is why science, mathematics, etc. They are all branches of philosophy. You must get your epistemology straight before any argument, discussion or disagreement can be had.
"Trolling" is a memetic neologism which is unconsciously regurgitated in response to an influx of external stimuli which the observer cannot adequately relate to. The implication is that the observer is insufficient, yet not introspective enough to avoid faulting the precipitating object, as opposed to the true cause of failed comprehension -- himself.
Your use of language is not sufficiently advanced to suggest otherwise. The more popular and frequently used a word becomes, the less it actually means.
Enjoy your maladaptive coping strategy, I guess.
Summarily intellectually decimated.
I don't like to make any assumptions about a person's grasp of "sufficiently advanced" English vocabulary, but you sure reduced him by 1/10'th with your diction. I don't know if I can agree that you did so "summarily" for a number of reasons, one of which is that I construe neither the breadth of a person's memory, nor their ability to either apply or understand it as a measure of their intellect.
----
On topic: I haven't done pull-ups or chin ups in a long time. In Gymnastics, I could do at least 20 (Which I did at least once at the Arnold Fitness Expo for the marine corps). We generally did sets (12,10,8) in our conditioning, but since that was at the end of practice, I certainly could do more when fresh. We did pull ups only. To this day, I can't do a single chin up: Too much arm usage. For reference I was 5'10.5" and 126 lbs.
-
My father once dared my brother to be able to do 20 pull ups/chin ups in just two weeks time (he started from 4). He ended up doing 48. He's an idiot!
-
Why are you talking in such a contrived, douchey manner, dorkvader?
-
I've only ever did 15. But that was when I was actively lifting, and it was lifting heavy for mass, not effectiveness. :p
I weigh 165 lbs now after I stopped lifting about 4 months ago. I gained 5 lbs and probably can't even do more than 10 now. :-[
and this pyramid quoting... My eyes... #.#
-
To get back on topic to this rather strange thread:
I can do about 40-50. I have a lot of mass to move at 250lbs, 6'2.
Bench, 430lbs
Squat, 520lbs
Really those with more slow twitch -Type I muscle fibers, swimmers, etc. can MANY more than the local gym hulks. Those of black decent are of mainly of Type I - with anomalies such as Ronnie Coleman. In contrast those of Euro decent have higher Fast twitch(IIb) ratios - again, anomalies such as Lance Armstrong. Ultimately, the body is a robust piece of machinery and can adapt to forced training towards a specific ratio type.
-
To get back on topic to this rather strange thread:
I can do about 40-50. I have a lot of mass to move at 250lbs, 6'2.
Bench, 430lbs
Squat, 520lbs
Geez... Makes me miss the gym now. I've always had a very weak pullup because I never focused on it. Also my biceps, core, lats, and upper back are my weakest areas.
I'm 5' 5"
My bench was 205 lbs on 4(sets)x5(reps)
My Squat was 295 lbs on 4x8
Your numbers are impressive!
-
I'm always drudging myself whenever it's time for gym. Then I tried P90x, been liking it.
You saved plenty of time travelling to the gym when you excercise at home.
-
With all due respect to all of the gifted philosophers out there, I believe that the proper response to Shadovved's remark is "Your mother's been telling stories about me again, ah?
-
Was doing 12, then dropped to 6 over a period of 6months due to work and a back injury.
Been trying to start exercising again, been 2 weeks now and I'm able to do 9. Nothing fantastic, but being a fat boy weighing in at 70kg and being 1.65m tall I think that's probably average or something, so nothing too bad.
Any gym-goers here have any tips on back recovery? I hurt my back during deadlifts a few times, and it's been feeling all strange and tight whenever I try to bend forward. I hope it's not a slip disc.
-
Was doing 12, then dropped to 6 over a period of 6months due to work and a back injury.
Been trying to start exercising again, been 2 weeks now and I'm able to do 9. Nothing fantastic, but being a fat boy weighing in at 70kg and being 1.65m tall I think that's probably average or something, so nothing too bad.
Any gym-goers here have any tips on back recovery? I hurt my back during deadlifts a few times, and it's been feeling all strange and tight whenever I try to bend forward. I hope it's not a slip disc.
ah.. deadlifts.. squats.. these are all fairly dangerous// risky exercises... did you have a spotter?
Sleeping and laying away is the only way to heal these type of injuries..
have you tried mounting your computer above your bed so you could battle the world lying down?
-
Was doing 12, then dropped to 6 over a period of 6months due to work and a back injury.
Been trying to start exercising again, been 2 weeks now and I'm able to do 9. Nothing fantastic, but being a fat boy weighing in at 70kg and being 1.65m tall I think that's probably average or something, so nothing too bad.
Any gym-goers here have any tips on back recovery? I hurt my back during deadlifts a few times, and it's been feeling all strange and tight whenever I try to bend forward. I hope it's not a slip disc.
ah.. deadlifts.. squats.. these are all fairly dangerous// risky exercises... did you have a spotter?
Sleeping and laying away is the only way to heal these type of injuries..
have you tried mounting your computer above your bed so you could battle the world lying down?
Nope, no spotters. I actually don't like to find people to go to the gym with me. When I'm alone, everything gets done real quick. I don't think it's possible to spot someone deadlifting anyway.
-
With all due respect to all of the gifted philosophers out there, I believe that the proper response to Shadovved's remark is "Your mother's been telling stories about me again, ah?
Oh, oops :D
I opened infinite cans of worms :p
Pun intended ;)
-
Was doing 12, then dropped to 6 over a period of 6months due to work and a back injury.
Been trying to start exercising again, been 2 weeks now and I'm able to do 9. Nothing fantastic, but being a fat boy weighing in at 70kg and being 1.65m tall I think that's probably average or something, so nothing too bad.
Any gym-goers here have any tips on back recovery? I hurt my back during deadlifts a few times, and it's been feeling all strange and tight whenever I try to bend forward. I hope it's not a slip disc.
Sounds like you may not have had the correct deadlift technique. Back straight, bar moving straight up close to the shins. I've seen too many people at the gym deadlifting with their back hunched. Lucky I had a good friend that emphasised to me the importance of technique especially with squats and deadlifts, because they can do a lot of harm over time if done incorrectly.
-
Almost everyone that works out seriously over the long term with progressive load is going to accumulate dozens of injuries, regardless of how good your form is. That includes professional athletes, powerlifters, strongmen, bodybuilders, etc. It's basically inevitable.
-
Almost everyone that works out seriously over the long term with progressive load is going to accumulate dozens of injuries, regardless of how good your form is. That includes professional athletes, powerlifters, strongmen, bodybuilders, etc. It's basically inevitable.
Well said Malphas. I was a serious (fanatical) weightlifter back in the late 60's and thru the 70's. I self inflicted a lot of pain on my body over those years. Joint issues, back spasms, hemorrhoids, fatigue, and the whole time I told myself and others how healthy I was. I blacked out several times during workouts. One time I came to lying on the floor with a 235lb bar over my knees my last memory being a successful snatch. I was alone and have no idea how the weight could have ended up there without hitting me on the way down. Some time around then I began to ask myself if what I called discipline and perseverance was just plain insanity. I had dreams of greatness fed by sayings like "you can do anything if you want it enough". Marriage, work and family eventually crowded the gym out of my life.
Since then I have tried workiing out many times. The problem is I habitually but unintentionally start replicating the intensity of my competitive past. I end up with another injury, or get sick from over exerting myself.
I have found that Mr. Miyage was right when he told Daniel to go "find balance". To know it is one thing to do is another.
When I was 21 I benched 395 and c&j'd 335 at 181lbs. Not bad in pre-steriod days but nowhere near elite even in the 70's. Performance enhancing drugs were around and we were aware of them but we didn't know how common they were among the elites. I could crank out 25 to 30 good pull ups any day. I just went out in my gym and did 9 but I had to do them palms facing me because of an injury. Ah, to be young again.
-
Almost everyone that works out seriously over the long term with progressive load is going to accumulate dozens of injuries, regardless of how good your form is. That includes professional athletes, powerlifters, strongmen, bodybuilders, etc. It's basically inevitable.
While I agree that we should take workouts "seriously"
Most of us are in fact NOT "professional athletes, powerlifters, strongmen, bodybuilders",
Balance as mentioned by Kurplop there, is do what you "NEED" which in modernity translates to staying fit, and looking good naked.
most of us are also not physical laborers
-
Almost everyone that works out seriously over the long term with progressive load is going to accumulate dozens of injuries, regardless of how good your form is. That includes professional athletes, powerlifters, strongmen, bodybuilders, etc. It's basically inevitable.
While I agree that we should take workouts "seriously"
Most of us are in fact NOT "professional athletes, powerlifters, strongmen, bodybuilders",
Balance as mentioned by Kurplop there, is do what you "NEED" which in modernity translates to staying fit, and looking good naked.
most of us are also not physical laborers
Despite many of us not being "professional athletes", keeping such tenets ensures safe practice. "... looking good naked", IMO is such a superficial answer. Similar to overclocking your computer, "overclocking" your body to new heights has a primal appeal of picking up an object and moving it. Not necessarily to "look good naked", but to be strong and getting big is just a byproduct not an end goal. All to many a time where I see n00bs walk in wanting to get "swole" or get a six pack for chicks; only to quit six months later. It just does not function like this, unless your extraordinary vapid and your ego needs it.
Alas, I'm 24 and I can definitely feel a difference from when I was 21 and I have to take it easy on some exercises. You don't also have to be a professional athlete or bodybuilder, as I am neither but have incurred countless inevitable injuries from lifting and I have perfect form even on heavy lifts.
-
Almost everyone that works out seriously over the long term with progressive load is going to accumulate dozens of injuries, regardless of how good your form is. That includes professional athletes, powerlifters, strongmen, bodybuilders, etc. It's basically inevitable.
While I agree that we should take workouts "seriously"
Most of us are in fact NOT "professional athletes, powerlifters, strongmen, bodybuilders",
Balance as mentioned by Kurplop there, is do what you "NEED" which in modernity translates to staying fit, and looking good naked.
most of us are also not physical laborers
Despite many of us not being "professional athletes", keeping such tenets ensures safe practice. "... looking good naked", IMO is such a superficial answer. Similar to overclocking your computer, "overclocking" your body to new heights has a primal appeal of picking up this object and moving it. Not necessarily to "look good naked", but to be strong and getting big is just a byproduct not an end goal. All to many a time where I see n00bs walk in wanting to get "swole" or get a six pack for chicks; only to quit six months later. It just does not function like this, unless your extraordinary vapid and your ego needs it.
Alas, I'm 24 and I can definitely feel a difference from when I was 21 and I have to take it easy on some exercises. You don't also have to be a professional athlete or bodybuilder, as I am neither but have incurred countless inevitable injuries from lifting and I have perfect form even on heavy lifts.
This is not a battle of "work ethics"
But to be HUGE these days is neither necessary, NOR practical...
Which is why in modernity, we exercise for balance in health, and "aesthetics".. there is little use for actual SUPER BODY OVERCLOCK""
-
Almost everyone that works out seriously over the long term with progressive load is going to accumulate dozens of injuries, regardless of how good your form is. That includes professional athletes, powerlifters, strongmen, bodybuilders, etc. It's basically inevitable.
While I agree that we should take workouts "seriously"
Most of us are in fact NOT "professional athletes, powerlifters, strongmen, bodybuilders",
Balance as mentioned by Kurplop there, is do what you "NEED" which in modernity translates to staying fit, and looking good naked.
most of us are also not physical laborers
Despite many of us not being "professional athletes", keeping such tenets ensures safe practice. "... looking good naked", IMO is such a superficial answer. Similar to overclocking your computer, "overclocking" your body to new heights has a primal appeal of picking up this object and moving it. Not necessarily to "look good naked", but to be strong and getting big is just a byproduct not an end goal. All to many a time where I see n00bs walk in wanting to get "swole" or get a six pack for chicks; only to quit six months later. It just does not function like this, unless your extraordinary vapid and your ego needs it.
Alas, I'm 24 and I can definitely feel a difference from when I was 21 and I have to take it easy on some exercises. You don't also have to be a professional athlete or bodybuilder, as I am neither but have incurred countless inevitable injuries from lifting and I have perfect form even on heavy lifts.
This is not a battle of "work ethics"
But to be HUGE these days is neither necessary, NOR practical...
Which is why in modernity, we exercise for balance in health, and "aesthetics".. there is little use for actual SUPER BODY OVERCLOCK""
"Work ethics" were not mentioned?
You're denoting a subjective opinion of modern western culture. Some of us play contact sports, where strength and physical size does make a difference. Even if one did not, different strokes for different folks with likewise parallel reasons for purpose. What could one say about the practicality of a keyboard collecting fetish?
-
Almost everyone that works out seriously over the long term with progressive load is going to accumulate dozens of injuries, regardless of how good your form is. That includes professional athletes, powerlifters, strongmen, bodybuilders, etc. It's basically inevitable.
While I agree that we should take workouts "seriously"
Most of us are in fact NOT "professional athletes, powerlifters, strongmen, bodybuilders",
Balance as mentioned by Kurplop there, is do what you "NEED" which in modernity translates to staying fit, and looking good naked.
most of us are also not physical laborers
Despite many of us not being "professional athletes", keeping such tenets ensures safe practice. "... looking good naked", IMO is such a superficial answer. Similar to overclocking your computer, "overclocking" your body to new heights has a primal appeal of picking up this object and moving it. Not necessarily to "look good naked", but to be strong and getting big is just a byproduct not an end goal. All to many a time where I see n00bs walk in wanting to get "swole" or get a six pack for chicks; only to quit six months later. It just does not function like this, unless your extraordinary vapid and your ego needs it.
Alas, I'm 24 and I can definitely feel a difference from when I was 21 and I have to take it easy on some exercises. You don't also have to be a professional athlete or bodybuilder, as I am neither but have incurred countless inevitable injuries from lifting and I have perfect form even on heavy lifts.
This is not a battle of "work ethics"
But to be HUGE these days is neither necessary, NOR practical...
Which is why in modernity, we exercise for balance in health, and "aesthetics".. there is little use for actual SUPER BODY OVERCLOCK""
"Work ethics" were not mentioned?
You're denoting a subjective opinion of modern western culture. Some of us play contact sports, where strength and physical size does make a difference. Even if one did not, different strokes for different folks with likewise parallel reasons for purpose. What could one say about the practicality of a keyboard collecting fetish?
Collecting keyboards is one thing.. But when you actively damage your body "sometimes" permanently, "that" is where I think lines aught to be drawn.
-
BlindRAGE- You remind me of a 5/4scale version of myself 35 years ago. I appreciate your intensity and can almost hear in your comments the testosterone surging and sloshing through your over developed circulatory system. I had almost forgotten the sensation of a seemingly immovable object submitting to the will. I think that intensity is great, especially if it is used wisely. There seems to be a feminization of young men today and it's nice to see that not every guy has been given a lethal dose of sissy pills. One thing I have found is that intensity and maleness do need to be controlled and channeled.
I met with an old training buddy a few years ago. I was telling him how I thought we wasted a lot of time in the gym when we might have been advancing in more "important" areas of our lives. He disagreed. He said if we were not in the gym releasing stored up energy who knows what kind of trouble we would have gotten into. I think he was right. Use it wisely while you got it. My testosterone has slowed to a trickle. What's the name of that patch?
-
-
BlindRAGE- You remind me of a 5/4scale version of myself 35 years ago. I appreciate your intensity and can almost hear in your comments the testosterone surging and sloshing through your over developed circulatory system. I had almost forgotten the sensation of a seemingly immovable object submitting to the will. I think that intensity is great, especially if it is used wisely. There seems to be a feminization of young men today and it's nice to see that not every guy has been given a lethal dose of sissy pills. One thing I have found is that intensity and maleness do need to be controlled and channeled.
I met with an old training buddy a few years ago. I was telling him how I thought we wasted a lot of time in the gym when we might have been advancing in more "important" areas of our lives. He disagreed. He said if we were not in the gym releasing stored up energy who knows what kind of trouble we would have gotten into. I think he was right. Use it wisely while you got it. My testosterone has slowed to a trickle. What's the name of that patch?
Go to any chiropractor, they can prescribe steroids.
-
Part of growing up, is realizing that you "Can't" do whatever you "feel" like... A great deal of thought/preparation is required...
-
Unfortunately I think you missed my point completely, tp4tissue.
I was expressing that your opinion doesn't matter. What you think is reality isn't necessarily the same reality for another person.
Blindrage said it well, but I wanted to add a little bit of laughter to the thread as it seems to be filling up with arguments on opinion every other day.
Thinking that you know what is practical for everyone in society based on your views is for the lack of a better term, ignorant.
And that "part of growing up" comment was hilarious too.
-
I know, I read on and then deleted the comment :)
Oh and thanks for the offer but I don't need a lesson :)
-
I know, I read on and then deleted the comment :)
Oh and thanks for the offer but I don't need a lesson :)
Okay <3
Deleted my response as well ^_^
-
i usually do 12-15 a set
can go up to 20 or so if i push myself
182lb
Check out Bar Brothers on youtube
-
i usually do 12-15 a set
can go up to 20 or so if i push myself
182lb
Check out Bar Brothers on youtube
I'm a fan of body weight workouts, because it would seem they're safer than weights, because it's unlikely that nature would design your body to crap out under your own weight.
-
i usually do 12-15 a set
can go up to 20 or so if i push myself
182lb
Check out Bar Brothers on youtube
I'm a fan of body weight workouts, because it would seem they're safer than weights, because it's unlikely that nature would design your body to crap out under your own weight.
I agree with this mostly. I also will exercise with resistance bands of different strengths.
-
i usually do 12-15 a set
can go up to 20 or so if i push myself
182lb
Check out Bar Brothers on youtube
I'm a fan of body weight workouts, because it would seem they're safer than weights, because it's unlikely that nature would design your body to crap out under your own weight.
I agree with this mostly. I also will exercise with resistance bands of different strengths.
I have a fear of Resistance bands.. I've broken one before and it very nearly hit my eye.
-
WORD!
Do whatever the F! you wanna do!
Do whatever the F! you wanna do!
Watch, go to work, shower, be glad you don't take 'roids, browse GH, sleep, repeat.
Do whatever the F! you wanna do!