Author |
Topic: How to write a riddle (Read 131017 times) |
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender: 
Posts: 13730
|
 |
Re: How to write a riddle
« Reply #25 on: Oct 19th, 2005, 2:26am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
on Oct 19th, 2005, 1:54am, BNC wrote:| Talking about the eyes, he also points a peculiar “design” – the optical nerves in the eyes point toward the light, instead of the more “sensible” backward in order to avoid blocking the light. It seems to me that it kind of showing lack of design, not ID… |
|
Since you bring it up, there is a lot of (supposed) bad design..
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html
On the other hand, you could always argue that if design through evolution is applied, you can't do better than the best case of evolution (but at least you'll do better than average evolution).
If you have an artist create a painting, but tie his hands and feet together, it probably won't look as good as it might otherwise, but it will still be an example of man made art.
Basicly, there's always an excuse you can think up.
|
|
 IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
Icarus
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Boldly going where even angels fear to tread.
Gender:
Posts: 4863
|
|
Re: How to write a riddle
« Reply #26 on: Oct 19th, 2005, 6:18pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Now that is how to argue against Intelligent Design!
|
|
IP Logged |
"Pi goes on and on and on ...
And e is just as cursed.
I wonder: Which is larger
When their digits are reversed? " - Anonymous
|
|
|
Grimbal
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 7526
|
|
Re: How to write a riddle
« Reply #27 on: Oct 20th, 2005, 1:42am » |
Quote Modify
|
There is a Scientific American issue dedicated to how the human body would be if it was designed right.
I remember 3 things:
1. Our knees would be bent the other way round (or the talon would replace it) as it is the case for ostriches and horses. It makes much more sense for running.
2. We would have 2 more eyes in the back. Seriously, imagine everybody had 4 eyes. Someone who needs to use mirrors to see half of the traffic around his vehicle wouldn't be allowed to drive. (But then, maybe we were not meant to drive cars). It would also make sense that we can watch our feet at the same time as we look where we are going. Donkeys have 360° vision and they can see all 4 of their feet.
3. Our spine is not designed for standing or lifting heavy weights. That's why it hurts.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: How to write a riddle
« Reply #28 on: Oct 20th, 2005, 3:56am » |
Quote Modify
|
I don't think 4 eyes would be much of an improvement.
You also have to consider complications, resources etc.
First of all we're doing fine with just two eyes, so we can safe on develloping two more. Secondly, two more eyes, means two more points were a sharp object can almost directly penetrate the brain. Thirdly, we'd need a) a bigger visual cortex at the cost of other brain functions, or b) divide the visual cortex among the two sets of eyes, or c) grow an even larger brain to accomadate.
I'm sure someone will think of more reasons..
The point is, it's a bit presumptious to think any improvement we may think of will actually be practically better. A donkey may have 360 degree vision, but his depth perception is much worse than ours. And our spine may not be designed for heavy lifting, but that's not the only function it has. A rigid spine might be more suited for lifting, but it'd really hurt our agility.
|
| « Last Edit: Oct 20th, 2005, 3:58am by towr » |
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
Grimbal
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 7526
|
|
Re: How to write a riddle
« Reply #29 on: Feb 7th, 2006, 11:14am » |
Quote Modify
|
I imagine that if everybody had 4 eyes (all around the head), we would be scared to see someone drive a car with only 2 eyes and little mirrors to help him see at the back! It is certainly an advantage, but maybe not so as valuable as we might think.
I think we have 2 eyes because it is not so easy to evolve extra eyes. Vertebrates appeared with 2 eyes so that's what we are stuck with.
Regarding the spine and the ankles, I'd say they havent completed the evolution from a quadrupedal to an optimal bipedal posture. That's why we have so many problems with them.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: How to write a riddle
« Reply #30 on: Feb 7th, 2006, 11:47am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Feb 7th, 2006, 11:14am, Grimbal wrote:| I imagine that if everybody had 4 eyes (all around the head), we would be scared to see someone drive a car with only 2 eyes and little mirrors to help him see at the back! It is certainly an advantage, but maybe not so as valuable as we might think. |
|
Having 2 more eyes would also require a larger visual cortex, or dividing the attention of it over twice as much input.
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
Grimbal
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 7526
|
|
Re: How to write a riddle
« Reply #31 on: Feb 7th, 2006, 6:20pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Oops! I can't believe it, I just repeated my post almost word to word. I remember I said about the same thing a while back, but I didn't realize it was just 2 posts up  .
Anyay, I understand your point, the brain is a big cost in energy. But I still think 2 eyes is not necessarily optimal.
The amount of visual cortex depends on the quality of vision. Most of it is allocated to the center of the retina. An eye with a lower visual quality, like that of peripheral vision would not take up so much extra cortex and still be a big advantage in some situations. I can't believe that for each of the immense variety of vertebrates, 2 eyes is the optimum. They have adapted their eyes in position and shape, probably adjusting the amount of visual cortex. But if none of them got an extra pair of eyes is more because of the hurdle it is for evolution rather than simply because 2 is optimal.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: How to write a riddle
« Reply #32 on: Feb 8th, 2006, 1:49am » |
Quote Modify
|
heh.. I didn't notice the repeat either 
You're right of course that two isn't necessarily optimal. But it seems practical. Less, and you don't have stereo vision, and more isn't really needed (even though there might be some advantages in some situation sometimes somewehere).
I'd be happier to get 20-20 vision, rather than need two pairs of glasses. 
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
Speaker
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 1118
|
|
Re: How to write a riddle
« Reply #33 on: Mar 23rd, 2006, 7:58am » |
Quote Modify
|
I am just jumping in.
Anyway. It seems that Grimbal was saying that if we were designed we could have X.
Whatever X is.
Then Towr argues that X would not be efficient for some reasons. Say it presents a weakness or a use of resources that might be better for something else.
My point. Towr, your arguments seem to be based on Darwinian theory. Whereas if the intelligent designer designs us, then almost anything goes.
You can have a pocket watch or a porsche. Both have advantages and disadvanteges. But, the designer (who is intelligent) designed them.
Did the intelligent designer also intend to design competition. The porsche and the ferarri? And the ford and the muddy road? The Giraffe and the Gnu and the tree?
Addition:
Just read through the posts. Better late than never.
I like what Grimbal said "ID does not need to be complex".
I claim to have an open mind.
Icarrus has proven that better than having an open mind is separating your glass from your plastic. 
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 23rd, 2006, 8:51am by Speaker » |
IP Logged |
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. <Ben Franklin>
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: How to write a riddle
« Reply #34 on: Mar 23rd, 2006, 12:01pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 23rd, 2006, 7:58am, Speaker wrote:| My point. Towr, your arguments seem to be based on Darwinian theory. Whereas if the intelligent designer designs us, then almost anything goes. |
|
Only intelligent things go. If things are designed stupidly, you can't get away with positing an intelligent designer.
Concerning nature the same criteria hold for both intelligent design and darwinian evolution. An organism has to survive and reproduce in practice, not theory. So if some newly imagine feature seems to have drawbacks that endanger survival, it just doesn't seem intelligent to incorperate them in the design.
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
JocK
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 877
|
|
Re: How to write a riddle
« Reply #35 on: Mar 23rd, 2006, 1:50pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Oct 11th, 2005, 4:27pm, Icarus wrote:
Both falsification (the ability to disprove the theory) and Occam's razor are guides to selecting between theories, but are not requirements for a scientific theory. Numerous theories are accepted in science that are not falsifiable. Archeology is filled with them. When true falsifiability is present, it is an desirable trait, but it's absence does not mean the theory should be rejected. Rather, its overall ability to explain and predict are what it is judged by.
Occam's razor will actually mislead you. When there is no other way of judging between two theories, Occam's razor is a good choice. But only if both theories explain current evidence equally well and do equally well at predicting new ones. And even then, the conclusion of Occam's razor should not be given great confidence.
Too see why, suppose someone had come up with the concept of special relativity back in the 16th or 17th century. It would have explained all observable phenomena just as well as Newtonian mechanics did - it predictions would be the same, to within measurement error. Since there was no means of determining which was correct, Occam's razor would tell you to go with the simpler Newtonian mechanics. Yet we now know that relativity is true.
|
|
Interesting discussion. I don't agree with the remark about Newtonian and relativistic mechanics. But it depends perhaps on what exactly you mean by 'Occam's razor'.
If these two theories would have emerged at the same time, no doubt relativistic mechanics would have prevailed as the simplest ("most elegant") model. It all boils down to the fact that "Galilean invariance" (the basis for Newtonian mechanics) needs to make an assumption around the existence of an absolute ether, whilst Lorentzian invariance (the basis for special relativity) does without.
One should not make the error of classifying a theory based on more advanced (more abstract) math as a more complex theory. However starnge it may sound, special relativity really is much 'simpler' than Newtonian mechanics.
|
|
IP Logged |
solving abstract problems is like sex: it may occasionally have some practical use, but that is not why we do it.
xy - y = x5 - y4 - y3 = 20; x>0, y>0.
|
|
|
Speaker
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 1118
|
|
Re: How to write a riddle
« Reply #36 on: Mar 23rd, 2006, 4:37pm » |
Quote Modify
|
OK towr.
That seems true if you separate ID from creationism (which I guess is the situation). So, I was combining them. Sorry.
Anyway, if you combine them you can say "the intelligent designer works in mysterious ways" so she could design anything. Like fish inside of which people might live, or cherubim and seraphim (or angels, which Hollywood tells us have no gender so cannot reproduce).
I guess if we have people who have strongly and publicly vocal religious beliefs, and these same people argue for ID; then I tend to combine their argument for ID with their religious beliefs.
I think that I am not the only one who combines them. There are people on both sides of the debate that are combining these arguments.
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 23rd, 2006, 4:45pm by Speaker » |
IP Logged |
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. <Ben Franklin>
|
|
|
JocK
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 877
|
|
Re: How to write a riddle
« Reply #37 on: Mar 24th, 2006, 12:22am » |
Quote Modify
|
Never bothered to read a thread "How to write a riddle"... cheez was I proven wrong! 
I fully agree with Towr's remarks about Occam's razor and the requirement of falsifiability. The succesful sciences rely much more heavily on Occam's razors than most people think. In this context it is important to realise that Occam's razor is a relative measure, a benchmark between competing theories with equal predictability.
Theories that do not satisfy the principle of Occam's razor are quite often also not falsifiable (by construction, they make the same predictions as the competing theory that does satisfy Occam's razor).
The established scientific communities will in general not waste any time or effort on attempting to falsify such pseudoscience. I dare say that there is no single instance in the history of the succesful sciences where - with the benefit of hindsight - one has to conclude that this approach of ignoring pseudoscience has hampered any scientific progress.
I am by no means an expert on Darwinism, Creationism and 'Intelligent Design' (ID), but from the above discussion it seems obvious that ID falls into the category of pseudoscience as it does not pass Occam's razor test, and moreover is also not falsifiable.
Finding a system that could not have evolved into what it is via an evolutianary path (a path of small trial-and-error steps), would constitute a falsification of Darwinism. The reverse however (failing to find such a system), can not count as a falsification of ID. This renders Darwinism falsifiable, but fails to do the same for ID.
Having said this, there are widely varying degrees of falsifiability. When Maxwell theory of electromagnetism predicts the speed of light to be 299,792,458 m/s, and in the century that follows the experimental results with ever increasing accuracy indeed zoom in on this value*, that is what I would call an example of a succesful falsifiable theory. (Anyone who thinks it a coincidence that such a succesful theory resulted from a merciless application of Occam's razor?)
Darwinism isn't anywhere close to such a degree of falsifiability. But it passes Occam's test and must therefore be for the time being be our working hypothesis.
* such that at some point this value even gets transformed into the definition of the relevant measurement units
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 24th, 2006, 12:52am by JocK » |
IP Logged |
solving abstract problems is like sex: it may occasionally have some practical use, but that is not why we do it.
xy - y = x5 - y4 - y3 = 20; x>0, y>0.
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: How to write a riddle
« Reply #38 on: Mar 24th, 2006, 12:45am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 23rd, 2006, 4:37pm, Speaker wrote:| Anyway, if you combine them you can say "the intelligent designer works in mysterious ways" so she could design anything. |
|
You could say that anyway. Even evolution works in mysterious ways. You often get completely surprising solutions. And not always understandable ones either (which is a problem if for example you're designing a piece of circuitry that works like a clock, and eventually it turns out it's actually an antenna picking up the signal from a monitor)
The problem with assuming that the intelligent designer would design just anything, is that it looses all explanatory power. There is no longer any reason why things are they way they are, other than the whims of the designer.
You can try to understand and emulate evolution, try to understand and copy intelligent design, but you can't do much with whimsical design.
Quote:| Like fish inside of which people might live, or cherubim and seraphim (or angels, which Hollywood tells us have no gender so cannot reproduce). |
|
Ooh, or a flat world on the back of four elephants on the back of a turtle that swims through space 
Quote:| I guess if we have people who have strongly and publicly vocal religious beliefs, and these same people argue for ID; then I tend to combine their argument for ID with their religious beliefs. |
|
That does seem implicit in their arguments. Don't try to suggest to them that their intelligent designer isn't the christian god for example. Or that there's a whole host of them.
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
Speaker
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 1118
|
|
Re: How to write a riddle
« Reply #39 on: Mar 24th, 2006, 12:52am » |
Quote Modify
|
Good advice.
I always thought that ID pointed more towards the little green men. Or the little white mice.
|
|
IP Logged |
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. <Ben Franklin>
|
|
|
alien
Guest
|
|
Re: How to write a riddle
« Reply #40 on: May 10th, 2006, 5:59pm » |
Quote Modify
 Remove
|
on Oct 7th, 2005, 8:14pm, sheep wrote:| What is the thought process required to create a original riddle? |
|
Good question. Never thought about it before, and so much about thought process. Actually, ideas for my riddles usually come to me when I drink my medicine and go to sleep, so drowsy I get out of the bed and write it down. I suppose writing riddles is not that different from poetry, but I think there is a way to force it, but do not ask me about it. Ask Yeats, alas he is dead, and so you are stuck with me.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Aravis
Junior Member
Posts: 56
|
|
Re: How to write a riddle
« Reply #41 on: Jul 27th, 2006, 6:07am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Oct 20th, 2005, 1:42am, Grimbal wrote:There is a Scientific American issue dedicated to how the human body would be if it was designed right.
|
|
I don't think the fact that the human body isn't designed "right" could point to either viewpoint being correct.
On the one hand, evolution is not survival of the fittest, really, it is survival of the suficiently fit. We as humans have done quite well without four eyes, so there is little evolutionary impetus to develop this. Thus the fact that we 'only' have two eyes is an arguement for evolution.
On the other hand, one could use a similar arguement for intelligent design. In my view, any change is a trade off. For example, yes four eyes would give us more vision, but also would decrease the amount of protection of our brains in the back of our head, and would either decrease brain volume or require a much larger head, in which case many other changes would be required to support the larger structure. An intelligent designer would (might, whatever) give us what we needed to survive, but not everything possible. For example, many new TV remotes have ten million buttons that do everything but cook dinner. However, really, you can get by quite well with a much simpler remote, which also tends to be much more robust. Simpler designs often have more long term stability (KISS), and thus a really intelligent designer would make us as simple as possible. Thus the fact that we 'only' have two eyes is an arguement for intelligent design.
The real problem in this kind of debate is that there is no smoking gun evidence, and what evidence we have can often be interpreted many different ways.
|
|
IP Logged |
Duct tape is like the force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together. -Carl Zwanzig
|
|
|
Grimbal
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 7526
|
|
Re: How to write a riddle
« Reply #42 on: Nov 7th, 2006, 1:53am » |
Quote Modify
|
But why do vertebrates, big or small, fish or bird, all have have 2 eyes, while non-vertebrates have a larger variety in number.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Speaker
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 1118
|
|
Re: How to write a riddle
« Reply #43 on: Nov 7th, 2006, 4:24pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Hello Grimbal
I consider myself a vertabrate, but some people still used to call me four-eyes. Anyway, back to your question.
Does it have something to do with bi-polarity or symmetry? So, two arms and two legs, one for the right side and one for the bad side.
|
|
IP Logged |
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. <Ben Franklin>
|
|
|
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
    
Gender:
Posts: 2872
|
|
Re: How to write a riddle
« Reply #44 on: Nov 7th, 2006, 5:21pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Nov 7th, 2006, 1:53am, Grimbal wrote:| But why do vertebrates, big or small, fish or bird, all have have 2 eyes, while non-vertebrates have a larger variety in number. |
|
Because eyes developed in several different ways independently, but backbones only evolved once, and in a creature that happened to have just the two eyes - had backbones evolved first, or evolved more than once, then there might well be more variation in eyes among vertebrates.
And the Anableps, or "four-eyed fish" is almost an exception - each of its two eyes is split into two, with some duplication and some elements shared between the two halves.
Superficial bi-lateral symmetry is largely due to the lack of systematic environmental asymmetry - up and down are well defined, and, for a mobile creature, so are front and back, but there's nothing to distinguish left from right, so there's no strong advantage to evolving separate designs for left and right. But that doesn't explain why we have two eyes rather than 4, 6, 8 or more...
One reason for sticking at 2 eyes is that the marginal utility of additional eyes drops fairly sharply after two: one allows you to see at all in the first place; the second allows good depth perception; the third and subsequent eyes can provide improvements to these qualities and redundancy, but I'm not aware of any new qualities they'd provide, and they would represent additional weak-points and require additional image processing power to provide visible benefits.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
Uberpuzzler
Sorry Goose, it's time to buzz a tower.
Gender:
Posts: 1672
|
|
Re: How to write a riddle
« Reply #45 on: Nov 7th, 2006, 5:27pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Nov 7th, 2006, 1:53am, Grimbal wrote:| But why do vertebrates, big or small, fish or bird, all have have 2 eyes, while non-vertebrates have a larger variety in number. |
|
I think it could be a combination of factors. First, the size factor. Because they are invertebrates, these animals are limited in size. Because they are limited in size, there is less space on their heads to support features like eyes, antennae, or other sensory equipment. Multi-faceted complex eyes make the most efficient use of a rather limited space. A "simple" eye like we have takes up a much larger amount of space relative to the field of vision it produces.
Think about how much space our eyes take up in our head to produce its signal. They are actually quite large. We need those extra large eyes, though, as our vision is based less on movement and more on perceiving depth through triangulation. Having a large distance between the front and rear of our eyes allows us to triangulate at further distances, and see more clearly, than a complex eye system.
Second, the compound eye is much better oriented towards detecting motion than the simple eye. Take a fly for example. Every time it sees an object in a specific part of the eye, it gets an almost duplicate image from the eye structures nearby. For a small insect operating in a big world, watching for that quick hand or foot coming to stomp your life out is probably more important than being able to scope the hot lady flies from across the room.
|
|
IP Logged |
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilei
|
|
|
Grimbal
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 7526
|
|
Re: How to write a riddle
« Reply #46 on: Nov 8th, 2006, 3:08am » |
Quote Modify
|
My point is that if vertebrates were the result of intelligent design, there would be no reason to stick to 2 eyes. Some animals would probably be happy with just one eye, some could use additional eyes to be able to watch the horizon while digging up some food. Some fighting animals could use more, less performant eyes for redundancy in case one gets lost.
But all vertebrates have 2 eyes. This can be explained if we accept that they evolved from a common ancestor. It is an easier evolutionaly path to evolve the exising eyes to different situations like 360° vision or stereoscopic vision than to change the design fundamentally by adding or removing eyes.
But I feel I repeat myself.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Icarus
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Boldly going where even angels fear to tread.
Gender:
Posts: 4863
|
|
Re: How to write a riddle
« Reply #47 on: Nov 8th, 2006, 6:12pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Actually, there might be any number of reasons to design only two eyes on larger creatures. In fact, I don't buy your evolutionary argument that we only have 2 eyes because of a common ancestor. Evolution has produced large variations in other things. I don't see why # of eyes should be stable - unless there is evolutionary pressure to keep it that way. And "evolutionary pressure" is just another way of saying "this design works better". And if it works better, why would a designer choose less functional designs?
|
|
IP Logged |
"Pi goes on and on and on ...
And e is just as cursed.
I wonder: Which is larger
When their digits are reversed? " - Anonymous
|
|
|
Grimbal
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 7526
|
|
Re: How to write a riddle
« Reply #48 on: Nov 9th, 2006, 5:47am » |
Quote Modify
|
Because to grow a new pair of eyes, you need to go thru stages of proto-eyes, starting with an area with some higher sensitivity to light and gradually get the capability to differentiate light coming from different directions, until you get real eyes. If you don't have any eyes at all, these proto-eyes provide a large enough advantage to push them to evolve into something more performant. But once you have eyes already, an extra organ with sensitivity to light doesn't bring anything that the eyes don't give already. So, in my opinion, it is a much more difficult barrier to cross.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: How to write a riddle
« Reply #49 on: Nov 9th, 2006, 8:37am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Nov 9th, 2006, 5:47am, Grimbal wrote:| Because to grow a new pair of eyes, you need to go thru stages of proto-eyes |
|
Or, you could just copy the pair you have.
In some cases it seems as simple as duplicating the piece of DNA responsible, if I recall correctly.
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
|
RIDDLES SITE
WRITE MATH!
Home 
Help 
Search 
Members 
Login 
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print