imagine

Comments

• exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  I’m imagining a set of big naturals

  source

  • MacNCheezus@lemmy.today ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Real

    source
• ivanafterall@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  I just imagined it? Now what?

  source

  • IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Well now you just triggered a false vacuum decay on the far side of the galaxy. Way to go.

    source
  • MajinBlayze@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Now wrote a paper showing that your set is neither countably nor uncountably infinite and become the most famous mathematician I’ve replied to today

    source

    • ivanafterall@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      No, it’s private. You have no right to the things I imagine and that wasn’t the deal!

      source
• Monster96@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Image

  source
• BarbedDentalFloss@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  There are more rational numbers than natural numbers. There are more real numbers than rational numbers.

  Checkmate meme.

  source

  • procrastitron@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    The problem is that rational numbers can be mapped to the integers (e.g. just encode each rational number as an integer), so there are not more rational numbers than integers.

    source

    • BarbedDentalFloss@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨52⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ ago

      No that’s not true. There are rational numbers in between the integers. Therefore the mapping between integers to rational numbers is injective and thus there are more rational numbers than integers.

      source
  • TheGuyTM3@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Well, there are more integers than naturals, yet both share the same cardinality. Also, I thing hilbert’s hotel problem shows that rationals and naturals also share the same cartinality, somehow. You could arrange every rational in a line like the naturals and the integers.

    source
• Kolanaki@pawb.social ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  The limit is trying to be 100% unique and novel.

  Like, try to imagine a creature that has 0 inspiration from everything you know about real life.

  source

  • TheGuyTM3@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    xighfkfutjgihugkghjgkckggdjjxubkctqjfhghhkhmhkhnvkcjfgrgshhgjdkguhjfjejtjgjffkcufjgjtiritu

    Okay i did it, now what

    source
  • wagesj45@fedia.io ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Sounds like you're asking the human brain to fire in a pattern it's not even wired for. Random noise in the web, or even definitionally impossible as "totally alien" might imply a configuration of neurons opposite of what we have. I feel like I'm having a hard time describing my thought here.

    source
• chuckleslord@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Imagine a 4D object if you think human imagination is limitless. Good luck

  source
• gigastasio@sh.itjust.works ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  I imagined a bunny wearing a kimono singing Bring Me the Horizon covers. ❤️

  source

  • reseller_pledge609@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    That actually sounds awesome. I’d pay to go to that show.

    source
• TriangleSpecialist@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Georg Cantor in shambles.

  source
• Dadifer@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Another way of stating the difference between natural vs. real sets is that you can’t count every real number. What’s in between? A set where you can count some significant portion?

  source

  • FishFace@piefed.social ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Are you saying that there’s nothing in between? Prove it, and turn modern mathematics inside out!

    source
• mEEGal@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Correct me if.I’m wrong but the Continuum Hypothesis was proven undecidable. So we can chose to add CH (false or true, whichever we like) to ZFC without changing anything meaningful about ZFC.

  But then, if we chose it to be true, could we construct such a set ?

  source
• thoughtfuldragon@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  If there was one, would that imply cardinality might be continuous rather than discrete?

  source