“But in my arithmetic, take one from one-”

Lunatic. 3
पागल (The Lunatic)
Context: You're clever, quick with words, your exact equations are right forever and ever. But in my arithmetic, take one from one- and there's still one left. You get along with five senses, I with a sixth. You have a brain, friend, I have a heart. A rose is just a rose to you- to me it's Helen and Padmini. You are forceful prose I liquid verse. When you freeze I melt, When you're clear I get muddled and then it works the other way around. Your world is solid, mine vapor, yours coarse, mine subtle. You think a stone reality; harsh cruelty is real for you. I try to catch a dream, the way you grasp the rounded truth of cold, sweet coin.

Adopted from Wikiquote. Last update June 3, 2021. History

Help us to complete the source, original and additional information

Do you have more details about the quote "But in my arithmetic, take one from one-" by Laxmi Prasad Devkota?
Laxmi Prasad Devkota photo
Laxmi Prasad Devkota 49
Nepali poet 1909–1959

Related quotes

“In the arithmetic of love, one plus one equals everything, and two minus one equals nothing.”

Mignon McLaughlin (1913–1983) American journalist

The Complete Neurotic's Notebook (1981), Love

Karl Marx photo

“The devil take this wrong arithmetic.”

Grundrisse (1857/58)
Variant: The devil take this wrong arithmetic. But never mind.
Source: Notebook IV, The Chapter on Capital, p. 297.

Pierre de Fermat photo

“There is scarcely any one who states purely arithmetical questions, scarcely any who understands them. Is this not because arithmetic has been treated up to this time geometrically rather than arithmetically?”

Pierre de Fermat (1601–1665) French mathematician and lawyer

Letter to Frénicle (1657) Oeuvres de Fermat Vol.II as quoted by Edward Everett Whitford, The Pell Equation http://books.google.com/books?id=L6QKAAAAYAAJ (1912)
Context: There is scarcely any one who states purely arithmetical questions, scarcely any who understands them. Is this not because arithmetic has been treated up to this time geometrically rather than arithmetically? This certainly is indicated by many works ancient and modern. Diophantus himself also indicates this. But he has freed himself from geometry a little more than others have, in that he limits his analysis to rational numbers only; nevertheless the Zetcica of Vieta, in which the methods of Diophantus are extended to continuous magnitude and therefore to geometry, witness the insufficient separation of arithmetic from geometry. Now arithmetic has a special domain of its own, the theory of numbers. This was touched upon but only to a slight degree by Euclid in his Elements, and by those who followed him it has not been sufficiently extended, unless perchance it lies hid in those books of Diophantus which the ravages of time have destroyed. Arithmeticians have now to develop or restore it. To these, that I may lead the way, I propose this theorem to be proved or problem to be solved. If they succeed in discovering the proof or solution, they will acknowledge that questions of this kind are not inferior to the more celebrated ones from geometry either for depth or difficulty or method of proof: Given any number which is not a square, there also exists an infinite number of squares such that when multiplied into the given number and unity is added to the product, the result is a square.

Richard Dedekind photo
Elie Wiesel photo

“I believe mysticism is a very serious endeavor. One must be equipped for it. One doesn't study calculus before studying arithmetic.”

Elie Wiesel (1928–2016) writer, professor, political activist, Nobel Laureate, and Holocaust survivor

As quoted in "10 Questions for Elie Wiesel" by Jeff Chu in TIME (22 January 2006) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1151803,00.html
Context: I believe mysticism is a very serious endeavor. One must be equipped for it. One doesn't study calculus before studying arithmetic. In my tradition, one must wait until one has learned a lot of Bible and Talmud and the Prophets to handle mysticism. This isn't instant coffee. There is no instant mysticism.

John Von Neumann photo

“Any one who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits is, of course, in a state of sin.”

John Von Neumann (1903–1957) Hungarian-American mathematician and polymath

On mistaking pseudorandom number generators for being truly "random" — this quote is often erroneously interpreted to mean that von Neumann was against the use of pseudorandom numbers, when in reality he was cautioning about misunderstanding their true nature while advocating their use. From "Various techniques used in connection with random digits" by John von Neumann in Monte Carlo Method (1951) edited by A.S. Householder, G.E. Forsythe, and H.H. Germond <!-- National Bureau of Standards Applied Mathematics Series, 12 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1951): 36-38. -->
Context: Any one who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits is, of course, in a state of sin. For, as has been pointed out several times, there is no such thing as a random number — there are only methods to produce random numbers, and a strict arithmetic procedure of course is not such a method.

Gottlob Frege photo
Richard Dedekind photo
Jane Yolen photo
John Wallis photo

Related topics