pro choice

Comments

• Tilgare@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  The bait and switch on this one really caught me off guard and gave me a great laugh. Good post.

  source
• edinbruh@feddit.it ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Finite games are all definite, either player 1 as a winning strategy or player 2 has, all other “outcomes” are just mental illnesses. Get over it, math doesn’t care about your feelings.

  source

  • robot_dog_with_gun@hexbear.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    me, playing for a draw: gigachad

    source

    • Cat_Daddy@hexbear.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Image

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • eestileib@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    All other outcomes are a collaborative aesthetic exploration of a game tree subject to a variety of constraints.

    The joy of the game, and indeed the value of the game, does not consist simply of winning. Even in go.

    source
• davidgro@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  On the other hand, he Doesn’t think you can double a sphere by cutting it into 5 pieces and reassembling them, so there’s that.

  source
• Zizzy@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Ok, i dont understand this level of math, but cant you force a win in a 2 player game of non-infinite moves? Why wouldnt you be able to? Genuinely asking

  source

  • trevdog@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    assuming a draw condition is impossible maybe

    source
  • BB84@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    For a finite game with no draws you are indeed able to.

    source
• Collatz_problem@hexbear.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  If you are so pro-choice, you can split your balls into several pieces and reassemble them into three balls!

  source

  • Cat_Daddy@hexbear.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    If you are so pro-choice, you can draw two parallel lines and they will always intersect at the horizon!

    source
  • woodenghost@hexbear.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Sure, why just this morning I got me a second car by choosing five sets of points of my old car and rotating them around a bit in my garage. No, you can’t see it, it was uh… a non constructive job. (jk I don’t own a car, or a garage for that matter)

    source
• Venator@lemmy.nz ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  It’s been a while since I’ve done products of sets, but what if one of the sets in the product is a set of empty sets?

  source

  • davidagain@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Then it’s not empty. If it were a union of empty sets, that would be empty.

    source
• serra@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  I hope that at least he believes in the Axiom of Choice.

  source

  • tetris11@feddit.uk ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    For anyone wondering what this is

    Bertrand Russell coined an analogy: for any (even infinite) collection of pairs of shoes, one can pick out the left shoe from each pair to obtain an appropriate collection (i.e. set) of shoes; this makes it possible to define a choice function directly.

    For an infinite collection of pairs of socks (assumed to have no distinguishing features such as being a left sock rather than a right sock), there is no obvious way to make a function that forms a set out of selecting one sock from each pair without invoking the axiom of choice

    So mathematicians always make the assumption that they can make a set from an infinite list of other sets based on this hunch, rather than any concrete choice function. And then they build mansions on top of this foundation, and use it score chicks and ferraris, smh

    source
  • SlurpingPus@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Another comment in the thread says that “isn’t pro-choice” is exactly about the rejection of the axiom.

    source
  • davidgro@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    … That’s the joke. (That he doesn’t)

    source
• mEEGal@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Fucking relatable !

  I’m that guy

  source