JS devs are like yep, that's clearly concatenation of 2 strings.
this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2026
119 points (94.7% liked)
memes
21419 readers
2479 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I came to complain about JS and see that I was beat to the punch
Mathematicians too
Gardeners too
I mean everyone looking at that equation should think that
Compared to a type safe language where it would be an equation rather then concatenation.
Only when the first statement is a string already would that result in a string concat.
They are implied to both being strings. As such the first one already is a string. Neither is marked as such in a standard way though.
I mean not really cause base one would just be 111 + 111 = 111111. On the other hand if its baseless it still doesnt work cause then its 3 + 6 = 9? But with that it could just be base 10. One thing that could work is that its actually a split base 4 and 8 system where the first 3 digits of a number are base 4 and the rest are base 8 but this is a very confusing system and the opposite of what is usual. It could also be a system where 1, 2, 3 are used for whole parts of numbers and 4, 5, 6 were added when they inveneted fractions so they represent the fractional part of numbers? Thats what im gonna put my money on tho im probably ignoring something obvious.
I think they just meant modulo 1 instead
I disagree with you definition of base 1. Since base 10 is 0 through 9, and base 2 is 0 and 1, therefor base 1 must be only 0.
The real question is: How do we continue?
What is base 0?
Is that equal to base 1?
Are the negative bases?
Base 1 is just run length encoding.
1: 1
2: 11
3: 111
...
10: 1111111111
This is completely true but i kinda shortcut to a zeroless base 1, basically a counting system. Another way you could make it work is of you had a seperate numeral for each factor of 2. So 1->1, 2->2, 3->4, 4->8, etc. So 123 is just 1+10+100->111 in base 2 so 123+456=123456 is true because 7+56 is 63. Idk i think we are overcomplicating a meme but thats what the internet is for and i think this system is actually not even that cursed.
And what about base e or fractional bases?
Popmath youtubers: "123+456=123456 😱" actual explanation depends on an obscure redefinition of numbers, + and =.
that, or you've accidentally used string instead of int 😅
In this case it depends on having base 1 with all digits being equivalent (i.e. 123 = 456 = 000).
So effectively 3 + 3 = 6, just counting digits.
Mathing made easy.