| Poem: Submit | Random | Best | Worst | Recent | Comments |
|
Math Poem (Free verse) by Dovina 1-1 = ½-½
2â2 = 1â1
Taking half from half is the same as taking two from two.
½/1 = 1/2
2/4 = ½/1
Half of a thing is the same as a quarter of two.
(Hang in there, follow the symmetry.)
1*1 = ½*2
¼*4 = 1*1
Half of two things is the same as a quarter of four.
½+1½ = 2+0
1+1 = ½+1½
Two and nothing more is the same as one and one.
Subtract, divide, multiply, add.
Zero, half, one, two.
Can you equate the series?
I wish the tools were here
to render clearly,
math expressions eloquentlyâ
integrals, Laplaces, differentialsâ
love, hate, fear.
Itâs like painting with a greasy finger.
I wonder how van Gogh might have written a poem.
Yeah, I knowâ
with a gun in a wheat field.
Up the ladder:
When Fairy Tales Forgive Us
Down the ladder:
Colloid
Votes: (green: user, blue: anonymous)
Arithmetic Mean: 4.875
Posted: December 18, 2004 7:57 PM PST; Last modified: December 18, 2004 7:57 PM PSTWeighted score: 4.9663825 Overall Rank: 8509 Comments:
Dovina this is very good. I'm a high school math teacher. jrodays daughter Felicia
Thank you, Felicia. That was a very nice poem your father wrote.
No, you can not just write down a sum, burble on about love, hate, fear and then make some guff conclusion. Your poem about converse blah blah had potential if it didn't lose its focus and conclude all manner of things. The idea of a maths poem is ok. But this is far too lazy. The last verse is cool.
Have I offended your sensibilities in burbling about a sum? I think it goes back to a prior discussion regarding science in poetry. At least you say the idea of a math poem is okay this time. And whatâs this about converse, unless you mean Dictionary Lesson? Wow, what a jumble of stuff to answer. Makes me lazy just trying. Maybe writing a math poem is like a painter writing one with only the tools he knows how to use.
Are you interested in mathematics?
Yes, and why do I suspect my answer will lead to another question, which will lead to something worse. I see jroday deleted his poem on which we were in the midst of a similar development. And Merry Christmas.
He probably deleted it so he could get it published.
Worried about copyright - I doubt it.
Do you doubt it's good enough to be published?
Back to that, are we? Same question, new setting.
You made no secret, in your opening statement on jrodayâs poem, that you find my vote of 9, compared to your 10, âvery sad.â Your ensuing questions sought to draw me into some slip-of-word, a self-made entanglement from which you could close in to inflict pain for your pleasure in accordance with your previously stated intent. You will understand if I am wary. âA smart fish swims around the bait,â and I have answered your question (in the deleted poem, and rephrased here) as fully and directly as it deserves, considering your stated motive. Today, I have a red dress to put on, a hat to wear, and cheer to deliver. May I begin by presenting you the enjoyment of a title for your possible development? âDovina, the Dimtard.â Catchy, isnât it? Has a pleasant ring. Using it and my âYesâ answer to your question in jroadyâs poem about whether I find his poem nearly as good as Yeats, you could expound for several pages, and enjoy the merriment of this special season. Again, Merry Christmas.
Surely you're big enough not to care what I think? Particularly if I'm the failed Spiderman you seem to think I am. My question was perfectly straightforward. But you chose to fudge it. Your 'answer' didn't even come close to being an answer. You could have just told the truth, which makes me think you don't want me to know the truth.
I think the truth is that you only gave the poeme a 9 because it flattered you. Let's face facts: POETICALLY, IT WAS A PILE OF WANK. Nearly as good as Yeats? lol. Why didn't you just say 'no' when I asked you?
Is that why you voted 10?
No I voted 10 because this is a site for POETRY and HELPING EACH OTHER OUT, not poking holes in other people's work :(
No, you have offended my sensibilities by writing down some sums and then concluding that you can't write a maths poem. Thrown in the mix; love, hate, fear for no apparent reason, and then made some lewd comment about 'painting' with a greasy finger.
The logic seems to be 1 + 1 is not poetic, 1 + 1 is maths, maths is not poetic.
This is not a good math poem, but I imagine the possibility of a good one. I like the idea of expressing with math some of the same fears, loves and hates that van Gogh painted.
and which of love, hate and fear do you feel when you realise 2 - 2 = 1 - 1.
Oh, maybe the end of a love affair (2-2) then the end of a life (1-1)
are you a scientologist or something. you can not go around randomly assigning words to numbers and not telling anyone. what kind of love affair has two people on each side anyway.
No, its not like that. I don't have this all formulated. Its just that metaphor (asignment) might work in a math setting, granted the numbers need more relationship to love, hate, etc, than I have shown. I don't think that makes the whole concept impossible or weird.
The difference between you as a mathematician, and Van Guff as a painter, is that Van Guff was an excellent painter, who painted all the time, whereas you are an appalling mathematician, who has done very little mathematics.
Too deep and numerical for me. As a sculptor my poems are rendered in stone with a mallet and chisel, it's the only way they stay immortal and the exercise keeps me fit and so patient.
You are a sculptor. van Gogh was a painter. I do a little math. How do you as a sculptor write poetry? That's the thing I want to get at. How does a car mechanic or truck driver put a thing so very common, that they do every day, into poetry.
I am not surprised you are being vague and elliptic, your core idea seems to be you don't know how to make maths poetic. Some clearly can so the poem is redundant. Of course you could always depict a sculptor as an writer. That would be an ace idea.
"Some clearly can"
Do you know any good maths poemes? The only one I can think of is this little gem by Lewis Carroll (who was a Mathematics Lecturer at Christ Church, Oxford): And what mean all these mysteries to me Whose life is full of indicies and surds? x^2 + 7x + 53 = 11/3
Very good.
Math 10, Poetry 8
I can't speak for a car mechanic or a truck driver, but I see no reason for them not to be able to write poetry. It could be a way of escaping what,to some, seems a humdrum existence. I can tell you that I didn't start writing until after I took up sculpture some nine years ago. I believe the creativity of sculpting released in me a need to explore creativity in a different form, poetry. My very first poem was about my father who died at the age of 49 years with a miner's lung disease. It proved to me that poetry is very much about emotion. No matter what we do for a living there is a poem deep within, knowing how to release it is the problem for most people.
"I can't speak for a car mechanic or a truck driver, but I see no reason for them not to be able to write poetry."
I can think of lots of reasons. For example, they are likely to be poorly educated, uncouth luddites. Mechanics work with their hands, not their brains. What little intelligence they do posses will probably be concentrated in the Cockney Song Department, rather than the Super Literacy Bassoon. Of course truck drivers would have to be semi-literate so they could read sign posts, but that's hardly sufficient qualification to consider soiling with world with your stultifyingly ill-conceived attempts at poetry. In my experience mechanics, truck drivers and builders are brash, unintellectual drones, and if they ever do write something, it will almost certainly be obscenely childish, and scrawled in crayon. I'm sorry but that's just the way I feel.
You have a bum idea about poetry. About painting, sculpting, mechanics, and truck driving, too.
Consider, by way of explanation, the following questions: How did Van Gogh, as a painter, make macaroni and cheese? How did Van Gogh, as a painter, use macaroni and cheese making in his painting? Thank you.
Pardon me, but are you speaking to me? Hey, these new red and green lines are very Christmasey, don't you think? Yes, I believe you are. Thank you for identifying me as a bum, and therefore having a bum idea of poetry. As such, I also make macaroni and cheese, and shall, if you request it, use that ability in the writing of a poem. Merry Christmas.
This is where you get yourself in trouble every time. I haven't said anything about you being a bum "and therefore having a bum idea of poetry." For one thing, being a bum doesn't mean you necessarily have a bum idea about poetry. Consider, for example: http://www.angelfire.com/folk/famoustram
To rephrase. You are a bum. You have a bum idea about poetry. To wit, you clearly think poetry, that magical ephemeral gobble that it is, has something to do with almost anything except the skill and technique needed to write good poetry. Consider my original questions for the comment above: Q: How would a painter, as a poet, write poetry? A: Why the fuck wouldn't he write it like a poet?!?! You're essentially saying: Frank is a painter. Frank is a poet. Frank writes poetry like a painter, not like a poet. You say this because you think poetry takes little work except for tapping into the meatwell of your tender pre-menopausal heart. Anyone can do it. Or, you're bound to argue, so - Q: How would Van Gogh, as a painter, make a chair? A: Probably all bad, crooked and perspectiveless. You'd think that's cool, I'm sure. Until you tried to sit in it and fell on your detaching uterus. Or bum. In all honesty, Merry Christmas.
Again you have said opposites and then attempted to unite them. Alas, I accept bumness as your most current opinion of me. And as such I write bum poems. Where you get the idea that I think poetry is magical or ephemeral, escapes me.
How well would a painter, or a truckdriver like INTRANSIT, or a sculptor like auscot, or a painter like van Gogh, write poetry. That, of course depends on two things - having the imagination needed to put a well understood profession into commonly understandable terms, and poetic ability. Are we clear now? This whole discussion seems insanely inane. I'm bored!
It is obvious where we get the idea you believe poetry to be magical. You seem to believe that poems that fail to embrace the rules of logic can actually be good poems. As for this poem, you fail to communicate any insight on the subject. Where in the poem does it talk about imagination and poetic ability.
I would add that the most important thing in translating an idea into a poem is that you understand the idea. Take for instance 'A dedication to the Golden Bird~' by Bhaskaryya. The poet who is a negro has clearly been told that having negroes in white society is good. However he has no idea why, so he clumsily throws in words like ethnicity and diversity hence being unable to make any insight whatsoever. Why do you think professors are better at explaining theories to students than other students who merely understand the basics. To understand is to be able to transform and hence better communicate an idea. It is not obvious where you get the idea that I believe poetry is magical. Your argument does not support your opening statement. Poems that fail to embrace the rules of logic can actually be good poems if they are well written from a sentimental, emotional, or other non-logical perspective. They are inherently no more or less magical than logically written poems. You have given an example a an unsophisticated man trying to talk and perhaps write among sophisticates, and not doing as good a job of it as a professor could. I see no relevance of this example to the subject. I agree with you that to be able to transform an idea is to better communicate it. But there are many ways to do that.
OK, I will put it more simply. When someone expresses an opinion, if that opinion does not follow rules of logic in terms of concluding from the premises that opinion is dim. If someone writes a scientific paper and makes conclusions that don't follow from the premises that can be said to be dim. You claim if someone writes a poem that ignores the restraints of logic that is ok. Therefore you are inferring a magical property to poetry.
What you seem to want is for ideas expressed in poetry to be beyond reproach. That is to say you can say what you like and not be examined on an intellectual level, only on a poetic (that it rhymes) level, which is bow'ls.
The relevance of my professor example is that the most important factor in being able to communicate an idea is understanding that idea. The better the understanding the easier it is to transform into metaphor and relate to other concepts it impacts upon.
You and I seem to have vastly differing concepts on both logic and romanticism. Your first paragraph says that not following the rules of logic is dim, thus eliminating romantic and emotional expressions from intellectual discussion. Your argument uses âa scientific paperâ as an example. Obvious, a scientific paper must be logical, but what does that have to do with the discussion at hand? You then say that because I claim that a poem that ignors the restraints of logic is okay, that I am claiming it to be magical. For the second time, let me say that âmagical,â in my opinion, refers only to well-written poems, logical or not. Next, you say that what I seem to want is for the ideas expressed in poetry to be beyond reproach. How silly! I criticize ideas in poems posted here almost daily, and welcome criticism on mine. I wish to be examined on an âintellectual level,â as you say, and on other levels. And why would you say that I consider rhyming important when my poems seldom rhyme? I donât get it. And will you now say I donât get it because I am dim and write bowâls? Can we have a sensible discussion on this subject, or is it best to just call each other names and walk away?
All forms of expression must follow logic or they are merely a collection of incoherent words. It is incorrect to say using logic eliminates romantic and emotional expression. Both romantics and emotions are debated by philosophers using logic. The reason I believe you ascribe magic to poetry is because you believe stringing sentences together with no logical order works. Somehow that writing it in verse makes those words less vague and more communicative than otherwise would be the case if you just strung sentences together that did not logically follow from each other. You believe that criticism of logic is invalid therefore a poem is beyond reproach with respect to logical inadequacies.
That is not what I said. Not even close! And except for a few lines, which you could point out, and except for a few lines in your poems, which I could point out, neither of us write that way.
What is not what you said. You said the use of logic forbids the use of emotion or romantics. I said philosophers debate romantics and emotion using logical thought. The problem comes when you believe you don't have to scrutinise what you write about emotion and romance. If a logician can take your poem and prove it to be flawed the poem is valueless.
The use of logic does not forbid the use of emotion or romantics. I never said it does. Romanticism and logic fit nicely together in many poems. But many other poems lack logic in their romanticism, and they too can be good poems. My I cite a favorite of mine by our departed Shuushin: Holding On by Shuushin She would act too eager to please, prone to furtive backward glances as we were never quite at ease. Secretive on past romances; something unsettled in her past, prone to furtive backward glances. I asked her once what spell was cast, lost deep in thought she closed wet eyes; something unsettled in her past. âI hopeâ said she âyou realize how difficult this is for meâ - lost deep in thought she closed wet eyes. She clasped her hands as if in plea then simply looked away again - how difficult this is for me. And so, up to the very end she would act too eager to please; her heart had never time to mend as we were never quite at ease.
Ace. I am sure shuushin will love you for saying how little logic their appears to his poem. Anyway where were we. Oh yes. All good poems must follow logic or else what are they-- a conveniently stored set of aphorisms. The whole point of a poem is you build up from a number of premises which include the 'poetic bits' to your insight. My criticism of this poem has always been, rather than building a poem from the simple maths premises you at first set out, you set out the maths premises and fail to make the bridge between premise and conclusion. To me you go from 1+1 to love, hate. That is not how you construct a poem. The reason you wrote the poem like this is because you do not fully understand exactly what you are saying.
Also if you could let me get back to doom 3 that would be ace.
You are released to Doom3. Please, sometime, look at Math Poem 2. I think itâs an improvement. Merry Christmas.
If you can cram into your head the idea that "magical" only roughly means "not abiding by logic or satisfactorily explainable by logical analysis", you'll be fine. But you can't and won't.
Your bigger problem is that you apparently think (and have indeed railed on about many a time) that we only examine, criticise or otherwise deal with poemranker poems according to their logical merits. Don't say, I haven't said this! No, of course you haven't said exactly that. You said it much more bumblingly and malapropismed. The ideas that usually make it into poems ARE hard to critique, especially since they're usually some variation on "God is Love", "Love is both pleasurable and painful", or, and rarely, "Negroes are people too, though obviously a lesser sort." Since it's pretty obvious that a poem is crap without some kind of logic, it IS easy to critique the logic of a poem you don't like and safely conclude that it's crap. And most poems I don't like ARE illogical. Your other problem is thinking "logical" means something like 'involving numbers or the word Boolean' (cf. Shuushin's respectably logical poem, posted here.) Bow'ls. And another shameful stain on your much-besmirched record.
Again you have said someone's saying opposites and attempting to unite them and then trumped loudly and unapologetically into the resulting vacuum. And never mind that the bulk of your "disses" depend on what you imagine are the negative connotations of the words "seems", "apparent" and "attempted", which really, in the long run, mean nothing as insults except to bums like you.
Where you get the idea that I've "said opposites" is beyond me. Do you mean that the statements "You are a bum" and "You have a bum idea about poetry" are opposites? Consider that in the first statement bum means something like "a hobo or transient" and in the second means something like the sense of "a bum leg" or "a bum pitching arm". Now even you must see their only loosely related. As concerns your second question, a truckdriver like INTRANSIT would (and does) write poetry at best like a bad or unpracticed poet, and at best like a decent poet. That he writes poems about truckdriving is pretty irrelevant. He writes them like a poet talks about truckdriving, not like a truckdriver talks about truckdriving. Do you see the distinction? I bet not. Despite that the rest of your comment agrees, forgets that it contradicts your earlier position, and then trumps loudly. I've been bored.
Creative and unique. I'm tempted to say this poem wasn't my style, but Iâm reserved at saying that too. I've never came across a mathematical poem before. It is as I had mentioned before very unique......
Would that it were.
Two and nothing more is the same as one and one.
are you expecting a threesome? -10- 'caues math kicks ass 601 view(s)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
â¢Â°â¢Gregory Jamesâ¢Â°â¢
And yet an Gentleman may write an poeme about an carrot. And is he not entitled to call it "Vegetable Poeme"? No, no, I suppose he isn't.