Haha, thanks! It was a tough choice between that and “Mr. and Mrs. Dursley were proud to say that they were always perpendicular to the tangent plane of every surface on which they stood,” but I’m an algebra kind of guy and wasn’t about to miss a chance to go with groups.

I love nitpicking this kind of thing, so please accept my advanced apologies for the following, I know I overthink it, but that’s kind of the fun in it.

* “The Dursleys”=the entire family, not just Vernon and Petunia, right? Hence, “Dursley” doesn’t quite work.
* “The Dursleys” doesn’t quite refer to the same thing as just “Dursleys”, either, right?
* Strictly speaking, they /were/ proud to say that they /were/ perfectly normal, past tense in both cases, right?
* Since they themselves make this statement about themselves (or rather AT LEAST, their past selves), this seems to require some other kind of – somewhat self-referential – statement, no?

Quite the pickle… 🙂

“Mr. and Mrs. Dursley, of number four, Privet Drive, were proud to say that they were distributed as
f ( x | μ , σ ) = {(1/σ(2π)^(.5))}exp{et cetera}”

All children grow up theorem disproved by counter-example.

The Road, Cormac McCarthy
“You forget what you want to remember, and you remember what you want to forget.”
seems to be begging for some DeMorgan style set theory.

Kind of like this opening epigram from La Rochefoucauld and comment from the translator/editor?

“Our virtues are most frequently but vices disguised.”

[This epigraph which is the key to the system of La Rochefoucauld, is found in another form as No. 179 of the maxims of the first edition, 1665, it is omitted from the 2nd and 3rd, and reappears for the first time in the 4th edition, in 1675, as at present, at the head of the Reflections.—Aimé Martin. Its best answer is arrived at by reversing the predicate and the subject, and you at once form a contradictory maxim equally true, our vices are most frequently but virtues disguised.]

Applying Newton’s law of cooling: dT/dt = k(T – T_env) the coffecient k will depend on the volume of porridge in each bowl.. At time $t*$ the $k$ associated with baby-bear’s bowl was such that T(t*) was “just right.”

For the Peter Pan one, I prefer: Theorem: there exists a unique child who does not grow up. And for A Tale of Two Cities: P and not P (credit to a colleague for the latter).

Proof.
1. There exists a child, Peter Pan, and Peter Pan is a child. (See Lemma from J.M. Barrie).
3. Peter Pan does not grow up, by the previous Lemma.
4. Suppose there exists another child, X, such that X /= Peter Pan, and X does not grow up.
…
X == Peter Pan, a contradiction.

“There is an idea of a Patrick Bateman, some kind of abstraction, but there is no real me, only an entity, something illusory, and though I can hide my cold gaze and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable: I simply am not there.”

Let X be a topological space and V a open neighbourhood of a point pb in the X. Consider X’ = X \ {pb}

Haha! Lovely. I’ll try:

“Two households, both alike in dignity, In fair Verona, where we lay our scene.”

M, C are households (s.t. Dig[M] = Dig[C]) \in Verona.

You’re on fire.

THE OLD MAN AND THE SEA by Ernest Hemingway:

“He was an old man who fished alone in a skiff in the Gulf Stream and he had gone eighty-four days now without taking a fish.”

Let A > 60, t = 84, f = 0.

“Mr. and Mrs. Dursley, of number four, Privet Drive, were proud to say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much.”

Let G be a group. Then Dursley is a subgroup of G such that for all g in G, g * Dursley * g^(-1) = Dursley.

Oh, that’s good, Greg.

Haha, thanks! It was a tough choice between that and “Mr. and Mrs. Dursley were proud to say that they were always perpendicular to the tangent plane of every surface on which they stood,” but I’m an algebra kind of guy and wasn’t about to miss a chance to go with groups.

That doesn’t quite work, tho, no?

I love nitpicking this kind of thing, so please accept my advanced apologies for the following, I know I overthink it, but that’s kind of the fun in it.

* “The Dursleys”=the entire family, not just Vernon and Petunia, right? Hence, “Dursley” doesn’t quite work.

* “The Dursleys” doesn’t quite refer to the same thing as just “Dursleys”, either, right?

* Strictly speaking, they /were/ proud to say that they /were/ perfectly normal, past tense in both cases, right?

* Since they themselves make this statement about themselves (or rather AT LEAST, their past selves), this seems to require some other kind of – somewhat self-referential – statement, no?

Quite the pickle… 🙂

“Mr. and Mrs. Dursley, of number four, Privet Drive, were proud to say that they were distributed as

f ( x | μ , σ ) = {(1/σ(2π)^(.5))}exp{et cetera}”

I’m just glad you didn’t convert those lines to all emojis, ‘cuz I hate emojis 😝

All children grow up theorem disproved by counter-example.

The Road, Cormac McCarthy

“You forget what you want to remember, and you remember what you want to forget.”

seems to be begging for some DeMorgan style set theory.

Kind of like this opening epigram from La Rochefoucauld and comment from the translator/editor?

“Our virtues are most frequently but vices disguised.”

[This epigraph which is the key to the system of La Rochefoucauld, is found in another form as No. 179 of the maxims of the first edition, 1665, it is omitted from the 2nd and 3rd, and reappears for the first time in the 4th edition, in 1675, as at present, at the head of the Reflections.—Aimé Martin. Its best answer is arrived at by reversing the predicate and the subject, and you at once form a contradictory maxim equally true, our vices are most frequently but virtues disguised.]

I LOVE THIS!!

Once upon a time (∃ t ∈ Time) there was a little girl (0<girl<ϵ) called ϵ-red riding hood.

Nice. I’m partial to Goldilocks and the Intermediate Value Theorem myself. 😀

Applying Newton’s law of cooling: dT/dt = k(T – T_env) the coffecient k will depend on the volume of porridge in each bowl.. At time $t*$ the $k$ associated with baby-bear’s bowl was such that T(t*) was “just right.”

For the Peter Pan one, I prefer: Theorem: there exists a unique child who does not grow up. And for A Tale of Two Cities: P and not P (credit to a colleague for the latter).

Good! Also: All children grow up. Peter Pan does not grow up. Therefore, Peter Pan is not a child.

Proof.

1. There exists a child, Peter Pan, and Peter Pan is a child. (See Lemma from J.M. Barrie).

3. Peter Pan does not grow up, by the previous Lemma.

4. Suppose there exists another child, X, such that X /= Peter Pan, and X does not grow up.

…

X == Peter Pan, a contradiction.

“To be or not to be”

1. TB v ~B”

2. “T”

Excuse me:

“To be or not to be”

1. “B v ~B”

2. “T”

Not an opening line. Not even the opening line of an act. That’s going to cost you 10 yards and loss of down.

\exists hobbit \in hole \in ground

Every fairy tale:

“Once upon a time, long, long ago …”

“\exists ! time \ll now s.t. …”

American Psycho:

“There is an idea of a Patrick Bateman, some kind of abstraction, but there is no real me, only an entity, something illusory, and though I can hide my cold gaze and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable: I simply am not there.”

Let X be a topological space and V a open neighbourhood of a point pb in the X. Consider X’ = X \ {pb}

Proposition: There exists at least one Hobbit.

Looks like I was scooped on that one. None of the recent posts appeared until after I logged in to post this, so I couldn’t see it. Oops.

Not a first line, but the title “Forever and a Day” made me think, “hey, that’s the second transfinite ordinal.”

So the title is “\omega + 1”

Let Song = Arms ^ Man