123
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by intohimo@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] lath@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago

There are tiny little creatures living on your face that poop on it.

[-] Etterra@lemmy.world 17 points 14 hours ago

There is a legally permissable organic contamination amount in any food, especially if it's processed. Bugs, hair, nail clippings, dirt, mouse shit, whatever - all ground up and processed asking with the product. And it can be in almost anything, including that one you really like.

[-] rain_worl@lemmy.world 4 points 5 hours ago

everyone makes mistakes :)

[-] Lettuceeatlettuce@lemmy.ml 26 points 16 hours ago

Combinatorics scares me, the immense size of seemingly trivial things.

For example: If you take a simple 52 card poker deck, shuffle it well, some combination of 4-5 riffles and 4-5 cuts, it is basically 100% certain that the order of all the cards has never been seen before and will never been seen again unless you intentionally order them like that.

52 factorial is an unimaginable number, the amount of unique combinations is so immense it really freaks me out. And all from a simple deck of playing cards.

Chess is another example. Assuming you aren't deliberately trying to copy a specific game, and assuming the game goes longer than around a dozen moves, you will never play the same game ever again, and nobody else for the rest of our civilization ever will either. The amount of possible unique chess games with 40 moves is far far larger than the number of stars in the entire observable universe.

You could play 100 complete chess games with around 40 moves every single second for the rest of your life and you would never replay a game and no other people on earth would ever replay any of your games, they all would be unique.

One last freaky one: There are different sizes of infinity, like literally, there are entire categories of infinities that are larger than other ones.

I won't get into the math here, you can find lots of great vids online explaining it. But here is the freaky fact: There are infinitely more numbers between 1 and 2 than the entire infinite set of natural numbers 1, 2, 3...

In fact, there are infinitely more numbers between any fraction of natural numbers, than the entire infinite natural numbers, no matter how small you make the fraction...

[-] LowtierComputer@lemmy.world 5 points 9 hours ago

Natural numbers being infinite, how it be possible for the values between 1 and 2 to be "more infinite" ?

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 39 minutes ago)

Basically, if two quantities are the same, you can pair them off. It's possible to prove you cannot pair off all real numbers with all integers. (It works for integers and all rational numbers, though)

How many infinities you accept as meaningful is a matter of preference, really. You don't even have to accept basic infinity or normal really big numbers as real, if you don't want to. Accepting "all of them" tends to lead to contradictions; not accepting, like, 3 is just weird and obtuse.

[-] red@lemmy.zip 10 points 7 hours ago

It's called countable and uncountable infinity. the idea here is that there are uncountably many numbers between 1 and 2, while there are only countably infinite natural numbers. it actually makes sense when you think about it. let's assume for a moment that the numbers between 1 and 2 are the same "size" of infinity as the natural numbers. If that were true, you'd be able to map every number between 1 and 2 to a natural number. but here's the thing, say you map some number "a" to 22 and another number "b" to 23. Now take the average of these two numbers, (a + b)/2 = c the number "c" is still between 1 and 2, but it hasn’t been mapped to any natural number. this means that there are more numbers between 1 and 2 than there are natural numbers proving that the infinity of real numbers is a different, larger kind of infinity than the infinity of the natural numbers

[-] LowtierComputer@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago

Great explanation by the way.

[-] jsomae@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 hours ago

Your explanation is wrong. There is no reason to believe that "c" has no mapping.

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Yeah, OP seems to be assuming a continuous mapping. It still works if you don't, but the standard way to prove it is the more abstract "diagonal argument".

[-] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 hours ago

Give me an example of a mapping system for the numbers between 1 and 2 where if you take the average of any 2 sequentially mapped numbers, the number in-between is also mapped.

[-] LowtierComputer@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago

I get that, but it's kinda the same as saying "I dare you!" ; "I dare you to infinity!" ; "nuh uh, I dare you to double infinity!"

Sure it's more theoretically, but not really functionally more.

[-] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 hours ago

but not really functionally more.

Please show me a functional infinity

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

It's like when you say something is full. Double full doesn't mean anything, but there's still a difference between full of marbles and full of sand depending what you're trying to deduce. There's functional applications for this comparison. We could theoretically say there's twice as much sand than marbles in "full" if were interested in "counting".

The same way we have this idea of full, we have the idea of infinity which can affect certain mathematics. Full doesn't tell you the size of the container, it's a concept. A bucket twice as large is still full, so there are different kinds of full like we have different kinds of infinity.

[-] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago

When talking about infinity, basically everything is theoretical

[-] TheGuyTM3@lemmy.ml 7 points 7 hours ago

It's weird but the amount of natural numbers is "countable" if you had infinite time and patience, you could count "1,2,3..." to infinity. It is the countable infinity.

The amount of numbers between 1 and 2 is not countable. No matter what strategies you use, there will always be numbers that you miss. It's like counting the numbers of points in a line, you can always find more even at infinity. It is the uncountable infinity.

I greatly recommand you the hilbert's infinite hotel problem, you can find videos about it on youtube, it covers this question.

[-] Hadriscus@lemm.ee 1 points 2 hours ago

Because the second one is bounded ?

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] BuboScandiacus@mander.xyz 10 points 14 hours ago
[-] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 hours ago

and Bostrom's simulation hypothesis and Pascal's wager, all subject to the validity threat "What alternative explanations are there?" and "How can I be wrong?". All of these thought experiments are unfalsifiable. They can all be explained with different theories. They all rely on circular reasoning. They all anthropomorphize entities that maybe don't resemble humans at all. They all fall for the mind projection fallacy. They all are prey to selection bias, because they cherry-pick scenarios among countless alternatives.

[-] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 13 points 17 hours ago

When you die, ants go straight for the eyes.

[-] BruceTwarzen@lemm.ee 3 points 8 hours ago

What if you choked on a burger?

[-] tetris11@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 hours ago

They still go for the eyes because you lost your nads a long time ago

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2024
123 points (98.4% liked)

Asklemmy

43668 readers
2033 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS