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

196

16822 readers
689 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world 83 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 28 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

[–] affiliate@lemmy.world 28 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 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What does type() mean here?

[–] affiliate@lemmy.world 25 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 15 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 8 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

[–] JackRiddle@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago

× is the cartesian product I think, no clue what the other thing is tho

[–] Pretzilla@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago
[–] hips_and_nips@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] affiliate@lemmy.world 8 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?

[–] Sop@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 year ago

This looks like classical ordinal set theory in relatively modern notation. I’d guess that Principia Mathematica uses batshit notation compared to this but I haven’t read it.