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
1 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
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.