Mathematicians write the most insane shit you've ever seen in your life then they're just like □ peace out
this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024
21 points (100.0% liked)
196
18136 readers
1460 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts are not allowed
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
If you wrote the equivalent of this in software I think linus torvalds himself would personally show up to destroy your pc.
Nah, formulas like that are basically the assembly code for logic.
statements dreamed up by the utterly deranged
Oh no, there are xis!!!
https://www.change.org/p/the-entire-multiverse-ban-xi-from-the-greek-alphabet
Im sorry, but the capital form alone justifies its existence.
This is giving me PTSD flashbacks from Number Theory at uni. What a fascinating mindfuck.
oh god number theory.... the things they make you do in that class.......
OP, I need the definition for × and <,> too
× is the cartesian product and = {x, {x,y}} is the ordered pair of x and y. (i.e., if x is in X and y is in Y, then is the corresponding element of the cartesian product X × Y). hope this helps
What does type() mean here?
it's the "order type" of a well ordering on a set. so, given a set X with a total ordering R, type(X,R) is the unique ordinal isomorphic to (X,R)
what's with the square at the end? isn't that usually for proofs?
yeah but sometimes when the textbook authors are feeling particularly mischievous they'll just put them in random places. and sometimes they'll even skip the proofs but keep the square.
Is this from Principia Mathematica or smth?
QED.