this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2024
-12 points (31.2% liked)

Showerthoughts

35273 readers
1032 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.

Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. No politics
    • If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
    • A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS

If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.

Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Pythagoras’ famous theory - which has long been proven and should be made into mathematical law - will never be, because the therm ‘Pythagorean Theorem’ sounds so pleasing.

top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 29 points 10 months ago (2 children)

A mathematical law is very different from a theorem. A law is something that is fundamentally accepted to be true but it cannot be proven. A theorem can be proven to be true (or false) using the laws of mathematics.

[–] QuarterSwede@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

English being weird strikes again. You’d think they’d be swapped but no.

[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

English was not engineered from the ground up to be sensible and consistent. Instead it evolved slowly over time, as new things got tacked on year after year, and other things died out or drifted in pronunciation.

Here's what Middle English sounded like:

"Whan that Aprille with his shoures soote, The droghte of March hath perced to the roote, And bathed every veyne in swich licóur Of which vertú engendred is the flour."

-Chaucer's Canterbury Tales

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I wonder how that is pronounced vs today. I imagine the spoken version drifts, but the sounds are more similar than the writing.

[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

We can't know for certain, since no audio recordings exist for obvious reasons, and we'd need a time machine to find a fluent, native speaker we can be confident is using period-correct pronunciations.

We can make educated guesses though, by deconstructing existing descendent languages and tracing back commonalities.

Here's what we've got so far:

https://youtu.be/5NB2Z6pZBNA

Also worthy of note that this sort of writing would've been distinct from daily commoner chit-chat, which would probably be more recognizable to us. Not sure how much of that got recorded and survived through the years though.

[–] bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 1 points 10 months ago

I think this is straight forward. In our everyday life laws aren't derived from something else either. They just are. And OP seemed to have a hierarchical view of them as well. They were just under the assumption that a theorem could be "promoted".

I guess a real-life analogy would be a judge making a ruling under some laws. That would make a precedent in many countries but not a law. If then a new law were passed it could invalidate that precedent similar to someone disproving a theorem.

[–] fubo@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

A law is something that is fundamentally accepted to be true but it cannot be proven.

Counterexamples: The law of sines and law of cosines in trigonometry.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 10 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Math laws are basically axioms, which means Assumptions we hold to be true.... meaning they are unprovable, if you could prove them from other axioms, then they would be theories and you wouldn't have to make a new assumption.

Everything else is built up on the assumptions and are called theories, assuming the axioms are correct.