608
spectrum rule
(lemmy.blahaj.zone)
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 11 Apr 2025
608 points (99.2% liked)
196
17516 readers
376 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts are not allowed
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Every non-empty finite subset of N admit a maximal element. As humanity is a finite subset of N, there is someone there which is the gayest of all.
That's still only if gayness has a total order, partial orders don't need to have one maximal element. (like, if you can say that both Alice and Bob are gayer than Charlie, but you cannot compare Alice's gayness to Bob's)
I've been telling Charlie he's not gay enough for years
Inifinitesimaly small increments of gayness must exist and thus the gayest person as well.
This is not necessarily true. The subset [0, 1) of the real numbers has an upper bound of 1, but it does not contain its upper bound, therefore there is no maximal element. How matter how gay you are, it's always possible to be a little gayer.
True, but for any finite amount of numbers chosen from the interval [0, 1), one of them will be the highest (or several share the max value)
Still, there will be someone assigned a number of gayness from [0,1) that is closest to 1, at any given moment and if there are two dimensions we could find highest and lowest from both and assign weights to each dimension to reduce it to one dimension
I mean to be honest only [0,1) ensures that there can be single gayest because if it was discrete then there could be millions having the same value of 16 for example. So maybe there is someone having 0.99939339 and in algorithm of finding gayest they were the highest at the given moment. Of course someone may be born with 0.99939340 the next day. But what about the floating gay precision? Will we run out of gaymory?
Yes. But the number of humans is finite. With inifinitesimal differences someone still has the biggest gay score.
We just need better science and tools with which to measure more precise levels of gayness.
You're assuming gayness is both integral one-dimensional and integral.
Personally, I think gayness is homomorphic to the set ℝ².
You're right, I've mixed denombrability of the set and sortability of the measure (don't know if it is the right words in engkish).
On my side, I'm not sure about dimension or continuity of gayness norm.
According to that logic, straightness would be heteromorphic to the set ℝ².
Destroyed by pure logic
So instead of general gayness, you have an axis for twink attraction and bear attraction?