What's the most confusing way to explain a simple concept?
Usually these will involve overly formal language. Formal language (as in law and mathematics) has its purposes. One of those is precision. But clarity can be lost.For example, most of us learn about the greatest common divisor in school. And we learn some definition such as “The biggest number that divides the two numbers” which is pretty clear. But in case it’s not, the GCD of 8 and 12 is 4, because 4 goes evenly into 8 and 12 and no higher number does.Now, here’s how Boolos, Burgess and Jeffrey define it in Computability and Logic:For natural numbers, write [math]u|v[/math] to mean u divides v without remainder … We say that z is the GCD of x and y and write [math]z = gcd(x,y)[/math] if [math]z|x[/math] and [math]z|y[/math] and whenever [math]w|x [/math]and [math]w|y[/math], then [math]w \leq z[/math] (except that, by convention, we let [math]gcd(0,0) = 0[/math]).They did not write it that way just to confuse people, they wrote it that way to answer questions that might arise about which numbers are allowed.
Can someone explain me darker than black ending (season 2 ) please ? **WARNING : SPOILER **?
At the end of Darker than Black season 2, Hei ends up killing Yin to save everyone. THEN in one of the last scenes, I think they're implying the Yin was reincarnated as another, gender bent, powerful being. It's not really clear. Kirihara remains a part of Section 3 but says that people have started calling them 'the new syndicate.' The syndicate was the group Hei was originally a part of, and I guess the best way to explain it is a group of people with common interest that are usually linked to crime. Hei was an assassin after all! THEN OF COURSE, there's Suou. Again, It's not really clear what happened but the thing that makes the most sense to me is that Xion used his powers to copy the life they were supposed to have before he died. So the way I understand it; July remains in MI6, Hei is probably watching over Suou, and Suou is living her life, fake or real. I hope I kind of clarified. It was all a bit rushed in the final episodes and I was really confused too. Hopefully there will be a season 4 that explains it better. Season 3 was announced but It's a prequel to the series following the events in South America.
Fear island endingg, so confused!?
I just watched it and all I have to say is Wow, Didn't see that ending coming. Okay, Jenna (Haylie Duff), the Girl that was being questioned and telling the story of what happened on the island is not really who she claims to be. Her real name is Megan, and she is the sister of the Girl that was killed and buried on the island by the two brothers. She was the killer the whole time. She killed all of them for revenge, because of what happened to her sister. But she is telling the cop and the psychiatrist a made up story pretending to be Jenna, the dark hair girl that she claimed was Megan in the story. She ends up drugging the psychiatrist by giving her that cup of soda at the end in order to escape the hospital, thus getting away with the crime all together. Hope that helps clear things up a bit
Insidious 2 ending explanation please (spoiler alert)?
First Question: The old man named 'Parker' had a split personality between him and his mother due to her being verbally/physically abusive to Parker when he was young. She was insane and took it out on him, especially when she would want her son to be a girl. The lady (killer disguise & black-vailed ghost) was Parker but his mother was the one basically controlling him to do all of these heinous crimes and haunting Josh's family. The 'lady' wanted Josh and his son because they both went to a world where the living never crosses, but the death stay. No one has ever gone in the kind of place before except for them two. So whenever they were in this place, their bodies were open for any soul to take; and that soul who wanted to come back into our world is the black-vailed woman. She wanted to take over one of their bodies to finish where she left off: to brutally kill once again. Second Question: Yeah, that was a bit confusing, but it just shows that Josh and his son time traveled in this place, took advantage of what they can do (in a positive way now). Also, if you saw the first movie of Insidious, it would answer all of your questions that were quite puzzling like random alarms going off at the home, random banging on the walls, etc. Third Question: There's most likely a third chapter of the movie that is going to come out, there is no indication on what she saw, it's just a way to make you get scared and wonder "what's gonna happen next".
Fartlek Training energy system interplay?
Fartlek means speed play drill and in generally incorporates jogging with periodic sprints. Most people try to start off with a 100 meter sprint every mile on their run and as they get better or it becomes easier sprint at will using landmarks and your breath or effort level as indicators. It's main goal is aerobic training with brief bursts of speed to teach you anaerobic training which will help you in passing, sprinting or responding to runners in a race. Coaches change the pace to incorporate their training some may use 10K pace with the sprints to keep the intensity higher than a jog or allow walk breaks for more recovery time. Fartlek is a country training so would make sense to train at jogging or race pace speed and over your cross country course. Good luck!
English Grammar: Is it 'Can you explain me?' or 'Could you explain me?'
Can is used when you want to know about a person's ability to do something.Could is used when you are requesting a person for something.Correct: Can you run 100 metres in below 10 seconds?Incorrect: Could you run 100 metres in below 10 seconds?Correct: Could you please give me some privacy?Incorrect: Can you please give me some privacy?The sentences you have mentioned above are grammatically correct, but probably not in the way you think.'Can you explain me?' indicates that you are asking if the second person has the ability to describe you (i.e. tell others about your personality). 'Could you explain me?' is similar, except for the fact that you are asking them to actually do it.What you really want to say is 'explain to me'. When the object in the sentence (here, me) is to be the receiver of the information (not the information itself), we use the preposition 'to' to show that the information is going to him, and is not about him.Correct: Could you explain to me why the sun rises in the east?Incorrect: Could you explain me why the sun rises in the east?Hope it was useful :)