# Mandelbrot Set Originally Found In 13th Century (Early April's Fool)

#### Hemos posted more than 13 years ago | from the my-history-degree-does-matter! dept.

122
lines writes *"I was amazed to find out that the Mandelbrot Set was discovered by a 13th century monk -- way, way before the advent of non-human computers. Apparently, a mathematician spied a mini-mandelbrot masquerading as the Star of Bethlehem in an illuminated manuscript's depiction of the Nativity scene. It turns out that this particular monk, Udo of Aachen, was attempting to mathematically describe a soul's path to Heaven. (For those unfamiliar with it, here's a quick introduction to the Mandelbrot Set.)"*

**Update 30 mins later**by

**J**: Yes, this is an old April Fool's joke - and a cleverly done one, too.

## Re:Oh, come on! (3)

## Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#345976)

about as well done as most of the "All your base are belong to us" Photoshop jobs, and just about as easy to spot. Hemos reallyYou mean those aren't real? Somebody didn't really tattoo 'all your base are belong to us' onto his ass and get chased by cops through a corn field?

## Well, hey.... (2)

## Wakko Warner (324) | more than 13 years ago | (#345977)

- A.P.

--

* CmdrTaco is an idiot.

## It would not have been possible, Roman numbers (2)

## Wastl (809) | more than 13 years ago | (#345978)

There is a very famous letter from a merchant to a mathematician in Germany were he asks where he should send his son for studying so that he can learn proper mathematics. The reply from the mathematician was that if he were just to learn how to add and substract, it would be sufficient to stay in Germany. But if he wanted to learn how to multiply it would be necessary to go to Florence (in Italy, has a very old university).

The problem for mathematics in Europe were the Roman numbers. They didn't allow a purely syntactical calculation like the arabian numbers we use now (try to add II and CIIX by writing them in a table like we learn now in school!).

Arabian numbers were first introduced in Europe with Adam Ries in the 16th century (I think).

Sebastian

## Gullible isn't in the dictionary. Look it up. (1)

## yelvington (8169) | more than 13 years ago | (#345982)

like the moon

you are changeable,

ever waxing

and waning;

hateful life

first oppresses

and then soothes

as fancy takes it;

first posting

and taking away

just an April fool's joke.

## Re:I could be wrong.. (1)

## nebby (11637) | more than 13 years ago | (#345983)

## I could be wrong.. (2)

## nebby (11637) | more than 13 years ago | (#345984)

If it's not a fake, then, well, wow. IIRC, the mandelbrot set is a plot on the real/imaginary axes of the "rate" at which the function approaches infinity for each coordinate.. it seems odd that a monk would use the same technique for describing the fractal. Especially since this technique is just begging for a high amount of computation. Unless I'm missing something, aren't there many possible ways to describe the mandelbrot set other than using this technique? I'd imagine a monk with limited computational resources would decide on a description of the fractal that would be more concise and elegant and less computationally intense than plotting it!

## Re:hand calculations (1)

## kevlar (13509) | more than 13 years ago | (#345985)

## Re:Which ones? (2)

## sharkey (16670) | more than 13 years ago | (#345986)

algorists, as they tend to punch the wrong dots.--

## Re:A math teacher once told me... (1)

## Kimble (17437) | more than 13 years ago | (#345987)

Altamira has a Photoshop plugin, Genuine Fractals [206.63.152.155] , that does this. I haven't tested it out yet, but I remember favorable reviews for it. It only requires a "G1" Mac with 32 megs, so the process of generating the fractals can't be too hard (of course, Photoshop users are accustomed to waiting for ages for something to happen).

For a (seemingly exhaustive) survey of the state-of-the-art (as of 1999) in fractal image encoding, check out this page [ucsd.edu] , which Google seems to like a lot.

--

How many classes do you have to take## Re:Oh, come on! (1)

## rueba (19806) | more than 13 years ago | (#345988)

It's semi-plausible and appears to have a lot of details.

Also, just because its two years old doesn't mean everyone has heard about it.

What I am trying to say is that hindsight is 20/20.

Anyone can be a genius after the facts come out.

Give Hemos a break, at least he spelled everything right!

## Re:Didja know "gullible" isn't in the dictionary? (1)

## Darth Hubris (26923) | more than 13 years ago | (#345989)

## Free My Soul! (1)

## SEWilco (27983) | more than 13 years ago | (#345990)

## Which ones? (2)

## TheDullBlade (28998) | more than 13 years ago | (#345992)

---

## Re:A fractal generator (1)

## Hew (31074) | more than 13 years ago | (#345994)

## Re:Wrong date on Florins (2)

## Hadean (32319) | more than 13 years ago | (#345996)

## Re:other resources... (2)

## cr0sh (43134) | more than 13 years ago | (#346000)

Worldcom [worldcom.com] - Generation Duh!

## A fractal generator (2)

## wiredog (43288) | more than 13 years ago | (#346003)

## No, I was too busy marvelling... (3)

## goliard (46585) | more than 13 years ago | (#346005)

... how an allegedly medieval monk knew how to paint a picture with renaissance perspective.

Mandlebrot, schmandlebrot. According to the accompanying picture, he figured out the vanishing point 150 years before anyone else!

## A little early for April Fools, isn't it? (1)

## jlowery (47102) | more than 13 years ago | (#346006)

## complex numbers as coordinates (2)

## klund (53347) | more than 13 years ago | (#346007)

Complex numbers have been studied for centries, but it was not until 1797 that the Norwegian Casper Wessel, in a paper read before the Royal Academy of Denmark, brought out the fact that since i^2 = -1, and since -1 could be looked upon as a unit vector which has been rotated through 180 degrees, then i could be looked upon as a unit vector which has been rotated halfway, or 90 degrees, or from the x-axis to the y-axis.

Reference: "Laplace Transforms for Electronic Engineers" by James Holbrook.

So our 13th century monk would have had to invent the concept of geometry on the complex plane, as well. Smart monk!

--

## I believe he was refering to the date... (2)

## Rix (54095) | more than 13 years ago | (#346008)

Cheers,

Rick Kirkland

## Anyone notice this at the bottom (5)

## ptevis (56920) | more than 13 years ago | (#346009)

I think that sums it up.

## Re:hand calculations (1)

## Cuthalion (65550) | more than 13 years ago | (#346010)

And shouldn't a book title be underlined?Historically underlines were standardized upon as a way of adding emphasis or setting somethign apart only after the typewriter made it impractical to

italicizethe things you ought. Now that this is no longer the case, I think that that convention is slowly evaporating, and both underlines and italics are considered appropriate.## Re:Actually it's a Julia Set (1)

## Cuthalion (65550) | more than 13 years ago | (#346011)

For some reason I thing that Lorentz was one of these peopleI don't know of Lorenz (I assume that's who you meant) doing any work with fractals directly. However he did a lot for chaos theory, by discovering a normal problem that displayed sensitive dependance on intitial conditions (he had a weather simulator. After seeing some interesting behaviour, he wanted to watch it again, so he typed in the same seeds, but they weren't printed out with the full precision that was used interally, so before long he got qualitatively different results. Trying to isolate this behaviour which struck him as odd (how can 0.000001 difference change everything?) he simplified his system and came up with the Lorenz Attractor [swin.edu.au] - rather than settling on a point or into an oscillating pattern, his system approached a curve of infinite complexity - a strange attractor.Sorry, once I start typing, I just can't stop!

## Re:A math teacher once told me... (1)

## Kalani (66189) | more than 13 years ago | (#346012)

to wit:

f(x)=1/x

x->1/n f(x)=n

Where "n" is the number of stars in the universe.

As for going from a fractal graph to a formula

____________________

## Re:other resources... (2)

## Speare (84249) | more than 13 years ago | (#346013)

In high school (over 10 years ago - eeek!) me and a friend would set up an Apple IIe ... with a Mandelbrot program written in BASIC..., we would let it run until our class..., where it would complete by the end of class, and save to floppy.Wow, and at the same time (1990), I was using an Ardent Titan supercomputer, and made a realtime flythrough program. It could generate a 512x512 plot in 1/30th sec, and wherever your mouse was centered, it would zoom in just a little closer for the next frame. Psychedelic.

Talk about opposite ends of the spectrum. :)

## Re:Non-Human Computers? (2)

## kevin805 (84623) | more than 13 years ago | (#346014)

How many 17th century computing machines are you familiar with?Well, I don't actually know how to operate or build one, but Blaise Pascal built a mechanical computer in the 17th century.

## Comments on hoax (2)

## kevin805 (84623) | more than 13 years ago | (#346015)

2. The bit about "disputing the bible's claim that pi = 3" really ruins the plausibility. No one except atheists trying to disprove the bible has ever claimed that the bible says pi = 3. It says there was a lake 30 cubits around and 10 across. Maybe St. John the Mushroom Head thought that "I saw a molten lake of fire 30 cubits around and nine and five hundred forty-nine thousanths cubits across" didn't fit the meter very well. Overall, the bit about pi should just be rewritten to make it more plausible.

3. profanus et animi is great: Material vs. Spiritual. Or maybe better translated as Real and Imaginary.

4. Fractals don't have "infinite detail" anymore than x*x + y*y 4 has infinite detail. Yes, you can keep bumping up the resolution, but the information content is totally captured in the equation generating it. (i.e. fractal image compression isn't magic.)

5. The update that this is a hoax should be removed from the summary so that people have an opportunaty to fall for it before they read the comments.

## Re:Oh, come on! (1)

## CaptainCarrot (84625) | more than 13 years ago | (#346016)

I'mthe dumbass?Pphhphptthththtpptththt!

## Re:Oh, come on! (1)

## CaptainCarrot (84625) | more than 13 years ago | (#346017)

## Oh, come on! (3)

## CaptainCarrot (84625) | more than 13 years ago | (#346018)

Update 20 mins later by J: Yes, this is an April Fool's joke - very well done, too.It's about as well done as most of the "All your base are belong to us" Photoshop jobs, and just about as easy to spot. Hemos really had his head up his butt on this one. It's a

two year old jokefor crying out loud!## Watch out for lightening bolts. (3)

## nublord (88026) | more than 13 years ago | (#346019)

"I was stunned," Schipke says. "It was like finding a picture of Bill Gates in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The colophon [the title page] named the copyist as Udo of Aachen, and I just had to find out more about this guy."I don't think the All Mighty is going to be to pleased with this comparison.

## How to generate simple fractals (1)

## BobGregg (89162) | more than 13 years ago | (#346020)

* On the X,Y plane, pick three points which are the corners of an equilateral triangle.

* Now pick any fourth point, and plot it.

* Now randomly choose one corner of the triangle, and move the plot point halfway towards it. Plot that point, then pick another corner, move halfway, and plot again. Repeat.

If you let this run for a while, the points converge into a shape called a Sierpinski Gasket, which is a readily-recognizable series of nested triangles. By varying the location and number of the control points, the transformation rules used to alter your plot point (use different movement rules, for instance, or weigh the probabilities of choosing those rules in some way) you can produce a wide variety of interesting and beautiful fractals.

## Re:Anyone notice this at the bottom (1)

## SuperguyA1 (90398) | more than 13 years ago | (#346021)

Could BSDevel be.... Mr T?

## Oh, come on (1)

## gazz (101967) | more than 13 years ago | (#346022)

I saw this about 4 years ago..

And how could it not be a fake.?

I have to say, there're a lot of things on

## Re:Oh, come on! (1)

## gazz (101967) | more than 13 years ago | (#346023)

## Re:Anyone notice this at the bottom (1)

## RoninM (105723) | more than 13 years ago | (#346025)

Speaking of April Fool's, you do realize he was pointing out the date and not the copyright?

## Trick Of Course.... (1)

## blazin (119416) | more than 13 years ago | (#346027)

## Wrong date on Florins (2)

## sachsmachine (124186) | more than 13 years ago | (#346028)

Plus, there is no Harvard Journal of Historical Mathematics, or if there is, Harvard's libraries don't know about it.

My medieval history studies finally serve me well...

## Re:Non-Human Computers? (1)

## Some12 (129970) | more than 13 years ago | (#346031)

## not really that funny (1)

## yzquxnet (133355) | more than 13 years ago | (#346032)

## Re:Non-Human Computers? (1)

## wfaulk (135736) | more than 13 years ago | (#346033)

computer

Pronunciation: k&m-'pyü-t&r

Function: noun

Usage: often attributive

Date:

1646:

one that computes;specifically: a programmable electronic device that can store, retrieve, and process databold emphasis mineHow many 17th century computing machines are

youfamiliar with?## hell... (2)

## elegant7x (142766) | more than 13 years ago | (#346034)

Besides, the mandelbrot set relies on a pretty recent advancement in mathematics: the use of complex numbers as (x,y)-coordinates on a plane.We didn't even have the

X,Yplain back then, either.Rate me on

Picture-rate.com[picture-rate.com]## This is a hoax. (1)

## alleria (144919) | more than 13 years ago | (#346035)

## I guess none of the editors read Kuro5hin (1)

## MikeApp (151816) | more than 13 years ago | (#346036)

-Mike

## Suppression of valid work (1)

## Perdo (151843) | more than 13 years ago | (#346037)

## And in other news... (1)

## Saint Aardvark (159009) | more than 13 years ago | (#346038)

stillclaims that this has no bearing on their patent for a single-click fractal.## Re:Non-Human Computers? (2)

## SquadBoy (167263) | more than 13 years ago | (#346039)

## Oh, *please* (1)

## Dr. Kinbote (171352) | more than 13 years ago | (#346040)

## Re:Actually it's a Julia Set (1)

## Gibbys Box of Trix (176568) | more than 13 years ago | (#346041)

I went to a talk by Mandelbrot, and he is basically a monster ego with feet and a big mouth.I went to a lecture by Mandelbrot, some 10 years ago. He was very self-effacing, and claimed he was embarrassed by the use of his name to describe the set.

When did you see him? Perhaps someone took him down a peg or two in between the two dates?

--

## Didja know "gullible" isn't in the dictionary? (3)

## isomeme (177414) | more than 13 years ago | (#346042)

isa pretty funny hoax, though.--

## Re:It's not a moandelbrot set (1)

## jerkface (177812) | more than 13 years ago | (#346043)

Oh, and wouldn't it be nice if slashdot supported the tag?

--

## Re:It's not a moandelbrot set (1)

## jerkface (177812) | more than 13 years ago | (#346044)

--

## Re:hand calculations (1)

## jerkface (177812) | more than 13 years ago | (#346045)

and James Gleick eludes to it in "Chaos".Don't you mean "alludes"? And shouldn't a book title be underlined?

All in good fun. And my punctuation is intentional.

--

## A math teacher once told me... (1)

## Sir_Real (179104) | more than 13 years ago | (#346047)

Yes that is a blank stare.

## other resources... (1)

## meatplow (184288) | more than 13 years ago | (#346048)

I was always, fascinated by it in school.

Does anybody have any links ??

meatplow.

fuckbunny.org [fuckbunny.org]

## Re:hand calculations (1)

## shokk (187512) | more than 13 years ago | (#346049)

You have no appreciation for the amount of spare time people in the middle ages must have had. If they had the brains to, they probably would have counted to 10,000 just for fun each day.

Let's see. What shall we do today? Kill some innocents out of complete ignorance...did that twice this week. Kick some pebbles? Done that. Work slavishly for the fiefdom...every day this week. Guess I'll stare at this wall for a while and then let my imagination run wild to think up some daemons so we can go kill some more neighbors.

## It's not a moandelbrot set (1)

## javaDragon (187973) | more than 13 years ago | (#346050)

Furthermore, this image bears only a very remote oliking to a mandelbrot set image in a x-y plane (which in turn is a recent invention too).

It can be anything artistic, but definitely not a mandelbrot set image.

## Since nobody else will admit it... :) (1)

## Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 13 years ago | (#346051)

## Re:hand calculations (2)

## grammar nazi (197303) | more than 13 years ago | (#346054)

Mandelbrot considers himself the 'father' of fractals.

This may be just the ego 'punch' that he needs.

## hand calculations (2)

## edwarddes (199284) | more than 13 years ago | (#346056)

## I recommend... (1)

## Vuarnet (207505) | more than 13 years ago | (#346057)

Fractint. I used it back in college during my Computer Graphics classes, and eventually my teacher just gave everyone else a copy so they would all see what a fractal was, and which fractals were the most popular.You can get it at the Fractint WWW pages [triumf.ca] .

Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I## Are things like this really a surprise?? (1)

## puck01 (207782) | more than 13 years ago | (#346058)

## Re:Anyone notice this at the bottom (1)

## while (213516) | more than 13 years ago | (#346059)

This one's on Hemos

(end comment) */ }## Re:Didja know "gullible" isn't in the dictionary? (1)

## vinnythenose (214595) | more than 13 years ago | (#346060)

## I told 'em (1)

## ackthpt (218170) | more than 13 years ago | (#346061)

andshrimp!Bugrit!

--

## Re:hand calculations (1)

## ackthpt (218170) | more than 13 years ago | (#346062)

--

## Is it just me... (1)

## MWoody (222806) | more than 13 years ago | (#346063)

---

## Re:A math teacher once told me... (1)

## jrockway (229604) | more than 13 years ago | (#346064)

## Re:Oh, come on! (1)

## RandomPeon (230002) | more than 13 years ago | (#346065)

0. Didn't look at the copyright.

1. It's well written.

2. Ramajun - if a poor Indian college dropout can come up with hundreds of new mathematical insgights (and rediscover others) in his spare time, it seems plausible that a monk (who could have been copying the bible

by hand) could have some astounding mathematical insights.3. The stuff about imaginary numbers being associated with the devil reminded me of "true" Greek tales about the gods being angry with the discovery of irrational numbers - the legend may be the source for that part of the hoax.

4. After enough math courses, the ideas expressed here (except for the Mandelbrot set) strike me as elementary. Imaginary numbers, probability axoims, ordinal infinity, and Cartesian coordinates seem intuitive. They're not, of course, and I would never come up with all of them on my own, but halfway through a math minor they seem like givens.

OK, I got taken. Just trying to feel less stupid.

## Score one for /. (1)

## Usquebaugh (230216) | more than 13 years ago | (#346066)

The only thing left to prove the integrity of

'News for nerds. Stuff that matters.' That was a long, long time ago. Now it should read, 'News for herds, Stuff that generates ad revenue'

## Re:I Love Calculus (1)

## Usquebaugh (230216) | more than 13 years ago | (#346067)

## Re:Score one for /. (1)

## Usquebaugh (230216) | more than 13 years ago | (#346068)

I've read the FAQ, and notable by it's omission is any forum for a discussion on

But back to the point at hand,

The

## Re:I could be wrong.. (1)

## GMontag451 (230904) | more than 13 years ago | (#346069)

the mandelbrot set is a plot on the real/imaginary axes of the "rate" at which the function approaches infinity for each coordinate.Actually, the mandelbrot set itself doesn't take into account the rate. The mandelbrot set is just the set of all points that don't escape to infinity ever. You cannot actually have a picture of this, without computing for an infinite amount of time (at least with current methods). All the computer pictures of the Mandelbrot set are just approximations. Anyway, in a normal Mandelbrot fractal picture, the actual Mandelbrot set is everything in black.

## Re:other resources... (1)

## GMontag451 (230904) | more than 13 years ago | (#346070)

Another good one that even lets you compile your own fractal algorithms into it. For Mac only though. Fractal Designer [unige.ch]

## Re:I could be wrong.. (1)

## GMontag451 (230904) | more than 13 years ago | (#346071)

## Re:other resources... (1)

## GMontag451 (230904) | more than 13 years ago | (#346072)

## Re:Actually it's a Julia Set (2)

## GMontag451 (230904) | more than 13 years ago | (#346073)

The guy lucked out in my opinion. He had an interest in something already known and other people developed the technology for him to take the credit. The sad thing is that this is worse than patent law since Mandelbrot will always get way more credit than he deserves.Gaston Julia did not discover the Mandelbrot set. He discovered the Julia sets. These are related to the Mandelbrot set, but are not the same. For every point in the Mandelbrot set, there is a corresponding Julia set.

Both sets use the formula z := z^2 + c, but they differ in what z0 and c are. In the Julia Sets, z0 is the point on the plane and c is a constant that defines which Julia set it is. For the Mandelbrot set however, z0 is always 0, and c is the point on the plane. In this way, the Mandelbrot set is a table of contents for the Julia sets. Each point on the plane that is in the Mandelbrot set corresponds to a Julia with that point's coordinates as its c that is connected. All the points not in the Mandelbrot set correspond to Julia sets that are not connected. This was the work that Mandelbrot did, and that is why the fractal is rightfully named after him, just as the Julia fractals are named after Gaston Julia.

Lorentz was not working on either the Mandelbrot or Julia fractals. He was working on simplified differential equations for modeling weather. This led to his discovery of the Lorentz attractor. Basically, his work showed that fractals and chaos were abundant in nature. The fact that we will never be albe to accurately predict the weather more than a month in advance also stems from his work. This is commonly known as the Butterfly effect, i.e. a butterfly flaps its wings in Central Park and a 3 months later, a hurricane doesn't hit Japan.

To the best of my knowledge he never acknowledged the work done by the meterologists. When I saw him he also claimed the results of the conjectures as his own and went out of his way to disparage the people who did the real work.I've never heard Mandelbrot try to disparage anyone in anyway. In fact, its mostly the other way around. People disparaged him because he would write papers in many different journals in widely varying fields, although really they were all in the field of non-deterministic systems, or whatever they are calling it now. People viewed him as an outsider, and therefore dismissed his work without considering it.

## April 1 is not quite here yet (1)

## Dr. Awktagon (233360) | more than 13 years ago | (#346074)

You guys posted this a little too early methinks..

## This may be a hoax But... (1)

## lmake (240649) | more than 13 years ago | (#346075)

I came across this while researching some maths assignment. Can't remember where though.

## Interesting... (1)

## thomash (250125) | more than 13 years ago | (#346077)

## Re:I believe he was refering to the date... (1)

## thomash (250125) | more than 13 years ago | (#346078)

## Fake? (1)

## anon757 (265661) | more than 13 years ago | (#346080)

## Re:Fake? (1)

## anon757 (265661) | more than 13 years ago | (#346081)

## Re:Anyone notice this at the bottom (1)

## BSDevil (301159) | more than 13 years ago | (#346082)

Think before you post, foo.

## Re:Score one for /. (1)

## Chyron (304285) | more than 13 years ago | (#346083)

Hint: Read the FAQ. Hell, you know what, I'm feeling kind to dumb animals today, I'll help you out.

How do you verify the accuracy of Slashdot stories?We don't. You do.

--

## Re:Score one for /. (1)

## Chyron (304285) | more than 13 years ago | (#346084)

I still maintain that Slashdot shouldn't _have_ to check up on the validity of every single story. But I think I see your point of view.

In the interest of fairness, I will now insult myself: I'm an offensive, inconsiderate moron. We're even now, methinks.

--

## Actually it's a Julia Set (1)

## capt.Hij (318203) | more than 13 years ago | (#346085)

lookslike the Julia set.The algorithm to find the set was thought to have been proposed by Gaston Julia. In the early sixties (me thinks) several meterologists actually toyed with the algorithm not knowing what Julia had done. (For some reason I thing that Lorentz was one of these people.) They even printed out pictures of it using fortran programs that went through a grid literally marking the converging points with an '*'. (Just think we can now do this using excel in half the time! :-)

Later, Mandelbrot looked at the same thing and was able to use the technology developed at IBM to make decent pictures of it. He went on to make many conjectures which were all proved by other people. I went to a talk by Mandelbrot, and he is basically a monster ego with feet and a bifg mouth.

The guy lucked out in my opinion. He had an interest in something already known and other people developed the technology for him to take the credit. The sad thing is that this is worse than patent law since Mandelbrot will always get way more credit than he deserves.

To the best of my knowledge he never acknowledged the work done by the meterologists. When I saw him he also claimed the results of the conjectures as his own and went out of his way to disparage the people who did the real work.

## Re:Non-Human Computers? (1)

## PorcelainLabrador (321065) | more than 13 years ago | (#346086)

I totally agree, though, about people sitting down and hammering out codes through WW2. Amazing, really. In this sense human computers does describe it best.

## Non-Human Computers? (2)

## PorcelainLabrador (321065) | more than 13 years ago | (#346087)

"I was amazed to find out that the Mandelbrot Set was discovered by a 13th century monk -- way, way before the advent of non-human computers".as compared to those pesky human computers.

Smartassesis what we call them suckers.## Re:other resources... (1)

## fractalus (322043) | more than 13 years ago | (#346088)

Ultra Fractal [ultrafractal.com] (Windows)

Iterations, Flarium24, Vchira, Ktaza, TieraZon [eclectasy.com] (Windows)

Fractal Domains [fractaldomains.com] (Mac)

There's lots of other stuff out there.

## Infinite Detail (1)

## fractalus (322043) | more than 13 years ago | (#346089)

## Correct link (1)

## fractalus (322043) | more than 13 years ago | (#346090)

## Re:other resources... (1)

## cwry (323706) | more than 13 years ago | (#346091)

## Re:Fake? (1)

## cwry (323706) | more than 13 years ago | (#346092)

## Almost as fun as Taiwanese Aircraft Carrier hoax (1)

## flacco (324089) | more than 13 years ago | (#346093)

## not as absurd as the real thing, sometimes ... (2)

## Montecristo6 (398332) | more than 13 years ago | (#346094)

## Wow (1)

## CybrGuyRSB (410357) | more than 13 years ago | (#346095)

## I Love Calculus (1)

## Derivatater (410642) | more than 13 years ago | (#346096)

## well, hmph... *i* was taken in... (1)

## lines (410893) | more than 13 years ago | (#346097)