this post was submitted on 29 Apr 2025
35 points (85.7% liked)
Math Memes
2098 readers
11 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don’t think that’s really true - a thorough understanding of Boolean logic is pretty essential to programming imho. I think you want to keep in mind the goal is not to prove you are smarter than the first chapter of your textbook, just to note the ideas and patterns it is introducing.
I mean I'm definitely noticing the patterns. I'm just frustrated that someone who is supposedly an expert in logic let something like that slip. Not assuming that logical negation means "opposite" is one of the first things they teach you. For example, if we were thinking in opposites, the negation of "all" would be "none." But the negation of "all" is "not all", where the negation of "none" is "at least one."
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 ...
Um, but there is?
It's called the universal set, and it contains all elements possible within the domain of consideration
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.)
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.
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.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