Math Memes

2104 readers

2 users here now

Memes related to mathematics.

Rules:
1: Memes must be related to mathematics in some way.
2: No bigotry of any kind.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

NotAUser@lemmy.blahaj.zone

First day of Discrete Math 💀 (lemmy.blahaj.zone)

submitted 6 days ago by SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/mathmemes@lemmy.blahaj.zone

32 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'm already so done with this course.

My textbook:

p: "The weather is bad."

Exercise:

Represent "the weather is good" using logical symbols.

Me: How am I supposed to answer that? You didn't give me a letter for that. I guess I'll use q?

Expected answer: ~p

THIS IS LITERALLY THE CLASS ABOUT LOGIC DHDJFBDHDJDHDHDH

Who let neurotypicals write a logic textbook istg

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] gandalf_der_12te@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

funnily enough, there exists an empty set, which contains no elements (none), but there doesn't exist a "full" set which contains "all" elements. how interesting is that ...

[–] SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Um, but there is?

It's called the universal set, and it contains all elements possible within the domain of consideration

[–] gandalf_der_12te@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

the set that contains everything is not a (proper) set, according to 20th century mathematicians.

That's because it would contain "impossible" elements, i.e. elements for which contradictory statements both hold true. That shakes the foundations of maths, so it's typically excluded from maths, and not called a "set". (it's called "class" instead.)

[–] SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Fair enough. Standard set theory would not allow for such a set to exist, and it would have to either be constructed in an alternate set theory with different axioms or, as you said, called a 'class.'

But it's not as if the concept isn't there, it just needs a little special treatment.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

well, yeah

what seems interesting to me is that these "impossible" mathematical objects typically have the property of being self-contradictory. That means, they include statements that contradict each other. Much like a human mind might contain desires that contradict one another. That's what makes this point so fascinating to me:

Typically, in maths, we assume that objects are eternal. If you have an object, like the exponential function, it's always the same function, no matter when you refer to it. But in reality, things change. I find it utterly fascinating to model such things as well.

[–] SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That's an interesting way of looking at things. It is telling that our best models of reality so far are wildly different from each other and mutually exclusive

[–] gandalf_der_12te@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 days ago

It is not mutually exclusive, i would say one is a subset of the other.