Talk:Alexandria's Star: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "Point of pedantry, here: When talking about it as a symbol, "perfect circle" is meaningless, since a circle when spoken about symbolically is always circle-shaped. Perfection onl...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Point of pedantry, here: When talking about it as a symbol, "perfect circle" is meaningless, since a circle when spoken about symbolically is always circle-shaped. Perfection only applies in any given instance of the symbol, and since perfection is inherently impossible, it remains meaningless. I think I might have a solution to this conundrum that satisfies narratively, though. -[[User:Slitherrr|Slitherrr]] | Point of pedantry, here: When talking about it as a symbol, "perfect circle" is meaningless, since a circle when spoken about symbolically is always circle-shaped. Perfection only applies in any given instance of the symbol, and since perfection is inherently impossible, it remains meaningless. I think I might have a solution to this conundrum that satisfies narratively, though. -[[User:Slitherrr|Slitherrr]] | ||
: Far be it from me to speak out in the name of needless pedantry. I agree it is an improvement. -gm | |||
Latest revision as of 19:10, 30 January 2011
Point of pedantry, here: When talking about it as a symbol, "perfect circle" is meaningless, since a circle when spoken about symbolically is always circle-shaped. Perfection only applies in any given instance of the symbol, and since perfection is inherently impossible, it remains meaningless. I think I might have a solution to this conundrum that satisfies narratively, though. -Slitherrr
- Far be it from me to speak out in the name of needless pedantry. I agree it is an improvement. -gm