132
Simple to say but hard to solve
(sh.itjust.works)
(Inspired by Reddit post of the last month)
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 16 Aug 2023
132 points (95.8% liked)
Linguistics Humor
2 readers
290 users here now
Do you like languages and linguistics ? Here is for having fun about it
Share this community: [!linguistics_humor@sh.itjust.works](/c/linguistics_humor@sh.itjust.works)
Serious Linguistics community: !linguistics@mander.xyz
Rules:
- 1- Stay on Topic
Not about Linguistics, language, ways of communications - 2- No Racism/Violence
- 3- No Public Shaming
Shaming someone that could be identifiable/recognizable - 4- Avoid spam and duplicates
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
ACKTUALLY neither. It's most simply thought of as a limit of progressively longer sums. Infinitesimals help people understand ~~but they're kind of logically questionable.~~
Actually that last point isn't quite right, in the 1960s Robinson proved that the set of hyperreals were logically consistent if and only if the reals were.
This put to rest the age-long speculation that the hyperreals were questionable.
This speculation is a pain in the ass since it means that we primarily use limits when talking about this sort of thing.
Which is fine, but infinitesimals are the coolest shit ever
I did know about hyperreals, which is why I went with just "questionable". ~~IIRC you lose things like commutativity and associativity of arithmetic when you include extra numbers in the real line, and I feel like numbers should really have those.~~
~~Maybe that's just my opinion though. Should I edit it?~~
Edit: I remembered very wrong. Fixing.
Nerd. Just shh away and be quiet
Dude. Be better
What did I do wrong here?
Demeaning without educating. Lacks opportunity for discussion and learning.
There was self-parodying irony here you might have missed. KnowYourMeme
I feel like discussion opportunities were present. In fact, a discussion about hyperreals did start, and I learned something in the process.
I do know the meme, but your use of it and your earlier statement of "I get the feeling you haven't solved many"; does not really convey irony, but rather, an elitist attitude that doesn't leave an openness for discussion. Without openness for discussion on a forum, there is little opportunity for an openness to learn.
So discussion may have occurred on the topic, by way of someone proving you wrong; but that leaves you as the only one learning, without offering the same opportunities to casual commentors.
The "irony" is that a cheeky comment went over your head, you began a closed-format lecture, and then you later tried to use irony yourself in another response (expecting to receive the same understanding that you yourself missed earlier).
So now maybe, we both have learned something. But it was through "ackchyually's" and "one-upping", rather than through openness. Be kind, be patient, be understanding, be welcoming... that helps nurture honest discourse