Not in every sense: insofar as we describe a state of affairs--"are they touching?"--yes, but insofar as we describe an action--"did he touch you there?"--no.
Let U be the universe discourse. A commutative operation on U is a function f : A x A -> A such that for any x and y in A, f(x,y) = f(y,x).
Here, U is the set of people P. So for touches(x,y) to be commutative, at the very least we must have touches : P x P -> P, which would require that when two people touch, they yield a third person. This is not always the case.
Much as I enjoy taking credit for that which I am deserving of, I don't think so. Although I don't recall any specific inspiration or source by now, more than three years later, I think I saw others do it first.
I remember a piece of advice from Old Man Murray, an old videogaming site. When your girlfriend is upset at how much time you spend on video games, and asks, "Why do I always have to be the superintendant of this relationship?", the correct answer is NOT "Why do I always have to be the Super Nintentendant of this relationship?"
He made a little graph of how funny he found that vs. how funny his girlfriend found it. The differences were striking.
I don't get it. What's wrong with those?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 06- 3-05 7:11 PM
How could she go down on him without touching?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06- 3-05 9:30 PM
She touched him.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06- 3-05 9:31 PM
Tantra!
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06- 3-05 9:32 PM
Touching is commutative.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06- 3-05 9:33 PM
The legal and spiritual responses.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06- 3-05 9:34 PM
Touching is commutative.
Not in every sense: insofar as we describe a state of affairs--"are they touching?"--yes, but insofar as we describe an action--"did he touch you there?"--no.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06- 3-05 9:37 PM
I think you mean symmetric.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06- 3-05 9:37 PM
That is, "touching" is a binary relation, not a binary function.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06- 3-05 9:38 PM
Commutative works: a x b = b x a :: if a is touching b, b is touching a.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06- 3-05 9:39 PM
Ok, fair enough, symmetric is better.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06- 3-05 9:40 PM
To be super-pedantic:
Let U be the universe discourse. A commutative operation on U is a function f : A x A -> A such that for any x and y in A, f(x,y) = f(y,x).
Here, U is the set of people P. So for touches(x,y) to be commutative, at the very least we must have touches : P x P -> P, which would require that when two people touch, they yield a third person. This is not always the case.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06- 3-05 10:13 PM
universe of discourse
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06- 3-05 10:14 PM
Crap, crap, crap. U = A, and let us never speak of this again.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06- 3-05 10:17 PM
I apologize for my inexactitude.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06- 3-05 10:18 PM
But the phrase
"So, ummmmmm, wanna touch it?"
does not mean the same thing as
"So, ummmmm, can I touch you with my johnson?"
The difference lies in the act of touching, touchor vs. touchee.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 06- 3-05 10:33 PM
You should probably stick to the simple math, SB.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06- 3-05 10:46 PM
You're all insane.
Posted by IA | Link to this comment | 06- 4-05 6:05 AM
If this were one of those blogs which lists things said about it somewhere, (example, example) I'd think 18 would have to be added to said list.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06- 4-05 10:11 AM
If this were one of those blogs which lists things said about it somewhere
Say, wasn't this guy doing that before anybody?
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 06- 4-05 10:36 AM
"Say, wasn't this guy doing that before anybody?"
Much as I enjoy taking credit for that which I am deserving of, I don't think so. Although I don't recall any specific inspiration or source by now, more than three years later, I think I saw others do it first.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 06- 4-05 1:36 PM
Geez, not that I meant to stop the discussion of touching. I wouldn't be touched to do that, unless, of course, it was in a good way.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 06- 4-05 9:27 PM
I remember a piece of advice from Old Man Murray, an old videogaming site. When your girlfriend is upset at how much time you spend on video games, and asks, "Why do I always have to be the superintendant of this relationship?", the correct answer is NOT "Why do I always have to be the Super Nintentendant of this relationship?"
He made a little graph of how funny he found that vs. how funny his girlfriend found it. The differences were striking.
Posted by Ted Barlow | Link to this comment | 06- 6-05 9:01 AM