just a bard!

Null • they/them • 20s • 💛🤍💜🖤 • autistic

[salenforu]

When you follow aesthetic/fandom blogs but also social issue blogs

[mossquitoman]

came to me in a dream

[charyou-tree]

@abalidoth

[apolladay]

If your country has a "thing", do you like it?

yes

no

nuance

other

results

Voting ended on7h

Example: Canada is known for hockey but I dislike it.

[mastergir]

This is absolutely the funniest spam email I've ever gotten.

[groupoids]

so-called "free thinkers" when they're left adjoint to a forgetful thinker (me)

[groupoids]

omg i did the infamous /y/ instead of /j/ thing,,, pwease reblog the edited version sowwy

[groupoids]

the prefix /b/ means 1-dimensional ("bar code"), and the prefix /kju/ means 2-dimensional ("QR code"). noticing this, many scholars have lost their sanity believing in and trying to find a way to continue the pattern. "there has to be a timeline times square time cube thing here, i know it", said one such scholar, before trailing off, muttering something about how a certain cartesian product of a 2-dimensional object and a 1-dimensional object results in a /kjub/

[groupoids]

factoids are neither unverified hearsay nor small facts. in truth, they are like facts but they can have more than one object

[shamebats]

[mark-gently]

dog mathematician: arff (arf and only arf)

[partywithponies]

[partywithponies]

[caz-the-yarncromancer]

First time I see the full lyrics without it being take me to snurch (snail church)

[darrenpillowscriss]

What really makes this for me is that OP could have phoned it in on the chorus and just repeated the same fics, but no. They found a unique one every time. Class act.

[abalidoth]

Workers of the world, unite!

Co-workers of the world, intersect!

[suppermariobroth]

In Super Paper Mario, it is possible to die while talking to Old Man Watchitt in Yold Town in Chapter 1-2, a rare example of being able to die during a conversation.

If Mario has 1 HP remaining, enters 3D and positions himself in the left chair in Old Man Watchitt's house, then talks to him, he will accidentally overshoot the correct 2D plane when attempting to reach the spot he is supposed to be standing while talking.

This will cause him to literally fall out of reality by walking perpendicularly out of the 2D plane. Due to only having 1 HP remaining, this will kill Mario and cause a Game Over in the middle of Old Man Watchitt talking.

Main Blog | Patreon | Twitter | Bluesky | Small Findings | Source

[demilypyro]

doesn't fit

[noelements-setempty]

If I want to be right, then proof by contrapositive is not wrong.

[asteroidtroglodyte]

The thing about the number 0 is that it’s the summation of every single number. Positive, negative, irrational, complex: you name it. The whole number line is in there. It’s like a kind of inverted Infinity.

[asteroidtroglodyte]

@groupoids

If you want a place to start reading, I’d go with Peano’s Axioms, or perhaps Cantor’s work on Infinity. I will attempt to explain:

0 + 1 = 1 ; by rearranging, we can get 1 - 1 = 0 , and we can also arrive at 0 - 1 = -1. We can do this for any number. 0 - 67 = -67 ; 0 + 3 + 2i = 3 + 2i; 0 + e = e ; etc. You might say that every number is the result of a modification to 0. In this way we could define 0 as the Summation of all Numbers, or what you get when you add up the whole number line from {-∞,+ ∞}. 0 is the number you get when you smash the two infinities together.

I don’t know how to Prove this, but I think this is why 0 is. Like That. Like. You multiply or divide by an arbitrarily large number and you’ll get an arbitrarily large result but it’s one result. When you operate on 0 you’re operating on a symmetrical set of all magnitudes and cardinalities. I think it’s something about being in the symmetrically balanced position. Something in one of Peano’s Axioms about defining the set of Natural Numbers with 0 at the center, or one of Cantor’s things about how Cardinality works. I am admittedly fuzzy on the details.

Anyway if you have any thoughts I’m listening

[groupoids]

hmm, i'm familiar with these, and it seems like as long as you have additive inverses, any number can have this property! you can choose to center around 0, or around another number by subtracting that number. what's unique here is 0 acting as the additive identity, but that doesn't imply that the sum is 0, even though the set is symmetrical about 0. for a counterexample, simplifying and considering the set

S = {1/n : n in N} U {0} U {-1/n : n in N},

depending on in what order you add the terms, you can make the result equal any real number you want, because of the riemann rearrangement theorem!

[groupoids]

the reals or complex numbers are symmetrical about 0, but also about every other number - and the peano axioms describe the natural numbers, at which 0 is an end, not a center!

adding uncountably many nonzero terms is something unusual one would have to very carefully and specialized-ly define, which is what i think i meant by asking "in what sense" initially

[asteroidtroglodyte]

Interesting! I am, admittedly, out of my depth, but this is how we learn.

Could you think of some way to specifically define adding infinitely many nonzero terms? Would that result warrant a unique symbol?

[groupoids]

folks use the same symbol Σ for summing either finitely or countably many terms, even though the way a countable "sum" is actually defined is not as a sum, but as a limit of the sequence of partial sums (assuming that limit converges). and we can't just sum across a set alone because adding in a different order gives you different partial sums, and there are exactly two ways order can matter here, at least in the real case: either you get the same sum no matter the order (if the sum is absolutely convergent), or you can get any number you want by choosing some order (if the sum is not) - there's no in between! and i'm not aware of any general way to define an uncountable sum of terms, unless all but countably many are zero anyway.

[asteroidtroglodyte]

The thing about the number 0 is that it’s the summation of every single number. Positive, negative, irrational, complex: you name it. The whole number line is in there. It’s like a kind of inverted Infinity.

[asteroidtroglodyte]

@groupoids

If you want a place to start reading, I’d go with Peano’s Axioms, or perhaps Cantor’s work on Infinity. I will attempt to explain:

0 + 1 = 1 ; by rearranging, we can get 1 - 1 = 0 , and we can also arrive at 0 - 1 = -1. We can do this for any number. 0 - 67 = -67 ; 0 + 3 + 2i = 3 + 2i; 0 + e = e ; etc. You might say that every number is the result of a modification to 0. In this way we could define 0 as the Summation of all Numbers, or what you get when you add up the whole number line from {-∞,+ ∞}. 0 is the number you get when you smash the two infinities together.

I don’t know how to Prove this, but I think this is why 0 is. Like That. Like. You multiply or divide by an arbitrarily large number and you’ll get an arbitrarily large result but it’s one result. When you operate on 0 you’re operating on a symmetrical set of all magnitudes and cardinalities. I think it’s something about being in the symmetrically balanced position. Something in one of Peano’s Axioms about defining the set of Natural Numbers with 0 at the center, or one of Cantor’s things about how Cardinality works. I am admittedly fuzzy on the details.

Anyway if you have any thoughts I’m listening

[groupoids]

hmm, i'm familiar with these, and it seems like as long as you have additive inverses, any number can have this property! you can choose to center around 0, or around another number by subtracting that number. what's unique here is 0 acting as the additive identity, but that doesn't imply that the sum is 0, even though the set is symmetrical about 0. for a counterexample, simplifying and considering the set

S = {1/n : n in N} U {0} U {-1/n : n in N},

depending on in what order you add the terms, you can make the result equal any real number you want, because of the riemann rearrangement theorem!

[groupoids]

the reals or complex numbers are symmetrical about 0, but also about every other number - and the peano axioms describe the natural numbers, at which 0 is an end, not a center!

adding uncountably many nonzero terms is something unusual one would have to very carefully and specialized-ly define, which is what i think i meant by asking "in what sense" initially