this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024
194 points (100.0% liked)

196

17627 readers
598 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.


Rule: You must post before you leave.



Other rules

Behavior rules:

Posting rules:

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
 
all 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world 76 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Mathematicians write the most insane shit you've ever seen in your life then they're just like □ peace out

[–] bonus_crab@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you wrote the equivalent of this in software I think linus torvalds himself would personally show up to destroy your pc.

[–] Aqarius@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Nah, formulas like that are basically the assembly code for logic.

[–] slampisko@lemmy.world 42 points 1 year ago

statements dreamed up by the utterly deranged

[–] Sasha@lemmy.blahaj.zone 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

OP, I need the definition for × and <,> too

[–] affiliate@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

× 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

[–] rasensprenger@feddit.de 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What does type() mean here?

[–] affiliate@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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)

[–] bort@feddit.de 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

what's with the square at the end? isn't that usually for proofs?

[–] affiliate@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] Lemjukes@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

Give it up for op actually out here answering questions like a real live teacher.

[–] Sasha@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago

Oh wow, I should know that... Thanks

[–] Pretzilla@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago
[–] hips_and_nips@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is giving me PTSD flashbacks from Number Theory at uni. What a fascinating mindfuck.

[–] affiliate@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

oh god number theory.... the things they make you do in that class.......

[–] yetAnotherUser@feddit.de 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] riodoro1@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Im sorry, but the capital form alone justifies its existence.

[–] Ragdoll_X@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is this from Principia Mathematica or smth?