4
If you add one to infinity...
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2025
4 points (83.3% liked)
Comic Strips
13257 readers
744 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Sure, "-∞ < ∞" is a useful concept, but it is not the same thing as when we talk about the sizes of infinities. What we mean by that is how many numbers it contains: (1,2,3,4...) contains fewer numbers than (1.0,...,1.1,...,1.5,...,2.0,...,2.5,...), but how large the actual numbers are, doesn't matter. The second example contains just as many numbers, is just as "large", as (1.0,...,2.0).
edit: Sorry for the snarky tone, I was going for nerd maths boy. Hope I at least am technically correct.
Yeah, I was going for simple rather than correct. I didn't want to get into explaining Cantor's Diagonalization to Lemmy folk.