(421 = a prime.)
Six new inanimate scrawls:
Three-Halves Of
Semi-Trigonometric
Symmetry
Emptiness Stirred Mathematically
Creation Transformed
By The Glassiness Of
Transformative Sands
Subaxiomatic Particularities
Amorphousness Yet Rotating..
As Unto Trigonometry's Shape
Skulvis
(Of course, the bottom image's
name, "Skulvis", is a portmanteau.
And the image above that has
a title which is an anagram.)
--------------------------------
--------------------------------
Anagrams:
14.
[Fourteen,
Rue of net,
To unfree.]
{I will not say there
are now 15 anagrams,
because this one above
is not really worthy
of being counted.}
Amorphousness
yet rotating...
=
As unto
trigonometry's
shape.
---
A polygon forms as
rotations there.
=
Those portrayals
are of its gnomon.
---
A scalar's
synesthesia
appears.
=
Any is as
spectral as
are shapes.
---
A spectral show:
So seen, so heard.
=
.. As were those
shapes and colors.
---
Dimensions are
synesthetic;
as poetic
formations
were drawn so.
=
Any creation is of
its space-time's
own theorems
and/or weirdness.
---
Time-pieces are so
distant then small
yet asymmetrical.
=
Most emptiness is
entirely created
as mathematically.
---
An angular hourglass
is of that, in this
passageway's descent.
=
The lens' focus was
as a gate; as any
sand-grains slip
through it.
---
In this hourglass
of shade's angular
descent,
=
.. The sand-grains
slide as through a
lens' focus.
---
The exacting
atoms align;
All is any.
=
Things entangle
as axiomatically.
---
The glassiness is
almost ideal yet
plexiform yet
harmonic.
=
That aperiodic helix
of atoms else aligns
in less symmetry.
---
One is divided and
is else as also
are its own zones.
=
In zero-lessness
inside, alas,
a void too
was denied.
---
Soon was...
=
Now; so as.
---
Odd piles:
=
Lopsided.
[^Did I post
this one already?
Worth posting
again, anyway.]
---
Finality else was:
=
Nils as we yet fail.
--------------------------------
--------------------------------
They say, even a broken clock
is correct twice per day.
But, a working sundial,
on the other hand*, is
correct half the day!
(But, these days, it is wrong
over half of those half-days
it would have otherwise been
correct, because of
Daylight-Savings Time --
but that is yet another
topic for yet another day
{which is Sunday, or
tomorrow as of when I
posted this}.)
*[On the other gnomon?]
-------------
You hear about that clock
which periodically stops?
Yeah, it predictably
does break like..
clockwork (sometimes does).
[If this clock is not auto-set
somehow, I am wondering how
this hypothetical clock would
even know when it is to break?
Hmmm..]
{^And my attempt at
pseudo-philosophy has accidently
begotten a possible riddle.}
--------------------------------
Introspective rainbows often
have their moments of..
'self-refraction'..
--------------------------------
Speaking of looking at oneself:
Why are "selfies" not more
commonly spelled "cell-fies"?
Maybe the word "cell-fy" is
wisely being reserved
(by whomever/whatever dictates
trendy words) for when, in the
very near future, AI tech
becomes so advanced that
cell-phones somehow achieve
consciousness and vanity, and
so those phones then begin to
take pictures of themselves
using their own cameras.
(Then people's cell-phones too
will become as annoying as now
are the people who use them.)
--------------------------------
Both the poor and the rich
need to make far more money.
But the difference is:...
The poor need to do so..
so to pay their bills.
Yet the rich need to do so..
so to pay their shills.
[.. And they both must
.. make their kills
just to have their fills.
.. To hunt, they must:
As it so is just;
as this common need
has been decreed.
And despite our skills
and despite our ills,
each such kill fulfills;
thus, its money thrills.
And we ourselves survive,
as we each always will,
still,
or.. we all will do so
only.. until...]
[.. Our nil?]
--------------------------------
[Did I post the
following already?]
Maybe pet-lovers
should refer to dogs as
'canine-beings'
and to cats as
'feline-beings'?
--------------------------------
Speaking of anthropomorphization:
Immigrants deported from a
country, now called "deportees",
should maybe instead be called,
to humanize them more,
"demigrants",
to be more politically-correct,
perhaps.
(And, as a bonus, "dem" resembles
Greek for "the people", "demos".
On the other hand, given that
"demi" is a prefix which means
'half', "demigrant" looks like it
might mean a person who has been
halfway granted something, such
as, say, permanent residency
and/or citizenship in the country
they are now living in.)
However, conversely, maybe
non-person items that,
after being imported into
a nation, have then been
returned back to their nation
of origin for whatever reason
("exported" or "deported" to
there, you might say) maybe
could be called..
'deports' (as a noun).
--------------------------------
[Have I posted the
following already?]
Siblings essentially are..
zeroth-cousins.
--------------------------------
The overlapping words of
this portmanteau, herein,
are moreover quite as..
'moreoverlapped'.
--------------------------------
--------------------------------
If you have the list of all
paradoxes where each paradox
in the list references Russell's
Paradox within it and where each
such paradox does not refer to
itself within itself, does that
list contain.. this paradox?
(But is this even a paradox?
And even if not, is it in
that list anyway?)
[I have NOT thought about this
question in any serious way...
or really at all.
My mind must thus contain,
MAYBE, the list of such
paradoxes?
Anyway, MAYBE there is
something SUPER-PROFOUND
in the {non-serious}
"paradox" I have stated
(non-paranthetically)
above.
But what about the list
of all paradoxes which
do not reference their own
{pseudo}profoundness within
them? Is the question of
whether this list contains
the very paradox herein
this very paragraph then
itself {pseudo}profound,
or is it not?... It is..
meta-{pseudo}profound!]
--------------------------------
--------------------------------
Suggested band-names:
'A Vicious Sphere'
'Shenanigans For Shut-Ins'
--------------------------------
(Singing lapses
lead to..
lip-synching.)
A suggested gimmick
for a professional singer:
The singer is a ventriloquist
who ACTUALLY sings during
live performances, but who
does not move his/her lips
(let alone lip-synch).
Anti-lip-synching,
in other words.
(Lapse-singing.)
(Lip-raising?)
(.. Slips inching{-up}.)
--------------------------------
Splitting a standing tree
vertically down its center,
and then removing one half,
will get you..
'a semi-tree',..
which is thus of..
'asymmetry'!..
(Although,
a group of many
'semi-trees'
might still possess
many 'symmetries',
geometric and/or
otherwise.)
--------------------------------
--------------------------------
(Regarding those sub-axioms..)
The mathematical analogs to
subatomic particles:..
Subaxiomatic particularities:
If there is a mathematical
proof that can be subdivided
between its steps,
between its lines, with
increasingly more basic and
rigorous lemmas/axioms each
supporting a step in the
previous iteration of this
lengthening proof -- so that
the proof as a whole is to
become increasingly more
certain as these sub-lemmas/
sub-axioms are interleaved
between the lemmas/axioms
of the previous iteration --
then maybe that mathematical
proof, after an infinite
number of such iterations,
becomes essentially..
a continuum,
ie. a continuous logical
(and infinitely complex)
structure of an infinite number
of supporting arguments each
supported by an infinite number
of supporting arguments
(.. ad-infinitum), arguments
which are more simple
and more certain at each
higher-order level than at the
levels of the previous orders.
(However, this likely would
not represent a 'continuum' in
the mathametical sense,
ironically. I am guessing that,
at most, the number of steps
would be of countable-infinity
{as large as the number of all
integers or fractions},
and would not possess the
cardinality of the set of
all real-numbers...
Not even close to being close.)
[Update: Whoops. Without thinking
too hard about it, I guess it IS
possible to get such a proof
that contains a number of steps
equal to the infinity which
equals the number of real numbers;
ie. the infinity of the continuum.
But,.. to do so would require
LOTS {an infinite amount} of
repetition of at least some of
the sub-lemmas/sub-axioms.
That is because the list of ALL
distinct proofs, lemmas, and axioms
which can be written in any language
with a finite character-set is of
a MUCH smaller infinity -- that of
the number of integers -- than is
the number of reals.
But if we wrote, say, 10 sub-lemmas
supporting each lemma on the level
above them, the number of all steps
in the proof would be as the number
of decimal fractions between 0 and
1, or in other words, the number of
proofs has the cardinality of the
reals. So the AVERAGE number of
times each subaxiom/sublemma is
repeated would have to be infinity,
quite a huge infinity, actually.
{Did I do that all^ correctly?}]
--------------------------------
--------------------------------
Now, the offensive stuff:..
[Warning: Rest may offend.]
It is fitting, I guess, that
many johns are loner-men,
...
since many prostitutes are,
essentially,.. loaner-women.
--------------------------------
As they say:
The only good [blank],
who is just-as-good-as-dead,
is a dead [blank],
who is just-as-good-as-dead.
[^You have carte-blanche
to fill in the 'blank'.]
--------------------------------
Some tongue-twisters:
(Your actual smileage may vary.)
"Those special spectra's
colorectal colors are
especially else as spectral."
"This is thus a trusted testament
to my rusty but trusty testes."
--------------------------------
Leroy
