74
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org to c/confidently_incorrect@lemmy.world

Source (restricted to non-HBO-Max regions)

Kamala Harris is known to love Venn diagrams and would be cringing hard at this.

For reference, circles in Venn (Euler) diagrams are sets of objects with a certain property. Select objects are shown inside or outside of each circle depending on whether they belong to the set.
A good example is xkcd 2962:
Hard to imagine political rhetoric more microtargeted at me than 'I love Venn diagrams. I really do, I love Venn diagrams. It's just something about those three circles.'

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I'm not saying either is good use of Venn diagrams (as opposed to the provided xkcd comic). A better "mathematical" way to express the relation is simply "KAMA + BLA = KAMABLA" (yes, the mathematical sign "+" is not used for concatenation in math but you get the point).

The tweet would work if we assume:

  • Left set A contains words that include "KAMA", notably "KAMA" itself
  • Right set B contains words that include "BLA", notably "BLA" itself
    • Their intersection A ∩ B contains words that belong to both sets, notably "KAMABLA".

Is it a technically correct Venn diagram? I'd say it could be, given the above weird assumptions.
Is a Venn diagram the correct tool for the job? No.

As for JO's example with sea creatures: if we assume

  • A is a set of dolphins
  • B is a set of sharks
    • their intersection is an empty set: A ∩ B = { } because no dolphins are sharks

JO's example might work if

  • A was a set of properties of dolphins
  • B was a set of properties of sharks
    • their intersection includes "lives in the ocean": A ∩ B = {"lives in the ocean", ...} because "lives in the ocean" is both a property of dolphins and a property of sharks

However, this essentially turns around the convention "sets are defined by properties and include objects" to "sets are defined by objects and include their properties", which is in my opinion even more cringey than considering "words containing 'BLA'" a notable set. (From a mathematical standpoint. The entire "Kamabla" thing is pure cringe in the practical sense.)

[-] ccunning@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I think this is a good explanation of why JO is wrong, which I was not expecting.

As for JO's example with sea creatures: if we assume

  • A is a set of dolphins
  • B is a set of sharks
    • their intersection is an empty set: A ∩ B = { } because no dolphins are sharks

This was my exact thought as I was watching but totally let it pass when he gave his “solution” without another thought before now.

However I still don’t think the tweet works. Your logic is sound but the diagram would need to label sets A and B with “Words that include…”

Of course that would just further expose it as unfunny and pointless.

ETA: I notice you edited the comment while I was replying. Hoping you didn’t change the substance too much - I don’t have time at the moment to figure out what changed and see if my response still applies 😅🤞

this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2024
74 points (84.9% liked)

Confidently Incorrect

3992 readers
1 users here now

When people are way too smug about their wrong answer.

Posting guidelines.

All posts in this community have come from elsewhere, it is not original content, the poster in this community is not OP. The person who posts in this community isn’t necessarily endorsing whatever the post is talking about and they are not looking to argue with you about the content in the post.

You are welcome to discuss and debate any topic but arguments are not welcome here. I consider debate/discussions to be civil; people with different opinions participating in respectful conversations. It becomes an argument as soon as someone becomes aggressive, nasty, insulting or just plain unpleasant. Report argumentative comments, then ignore them.

There is currently no rule about how recent a post needs to be because the community is about the comeback part, not the topic.

Rules:

• Be civil and remember the human.

• No trolling, insults or name calling. Swearing in general is fine, but not to insult someone.

• No bigotry of any kind, including homophobia, transphobia, sexism and racism.

• You are welcome to discuss and debate any topic but arguments are not welcome here. I consider debate/discussions to be civil; people with different opinions participating in respectful conversations. It becomes an argument as soon as someone becomes aggressive, nasty, insulting or just plain unpleasant. Report argumentative comments, then ignore them.

• Try not to get too political. A lot of these posts will involve politics, but this isn’t the place for political arguments.

• Participate in good faith - don’t be aggressive and don’t argue for arguements sake.

• Mark NSFW posts if they contain nudity.

• Satire is allowed but please start the post title with [satire] so other users can filter it out if they’d like.

Please report comments that break site or community rules to the mods. If you break the rules you’ll receive one warning before being banned from this community.

This community follows the rules of the lemmy.world instance and the lemmy.org code of conduct. I’ve summarised them here:

  1. Be civil, remember the human.
  2. No insulting or harassing other members. That includes name calling.
  3. Respect differences of opinion. Civil discussion/debate is fine, arguing is not. Criticise ideas, not people.
  4. Keep unrequested/unstructured critique to a minimum.
  5. Remember we have all chosen to be here voluntarily. Respect the spent time and effort people have spent creating posts in order to share something they find amusing with you.
  6. Swearing in general is fine, swearing to insult another commenter isn’t.
  7. No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia or any other type of bigotry.
  8. No incitement of violence or promotion of violent ideologies.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS