this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024
185 points (100.0% liked)

196

16437 readers
1701 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world 75 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Mathematicians write the most insane shit you've ever seen in your life then they're just like □ peace out

[–] bonus_crab@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If you wrote the equivalent of this in software I think linus torvalds himself would personally show up to destroy your pc.

[–] Aqarius@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Nah, formulas like that are basically the assembly code for logic.

[–] slampisko@lemmy.world 41 points 9 months ago

statements dreamed up by the utterly deranged

[–] Sasha@lemmy.blahaj.zone 27 points 9 months ago (2 children)

OP, I need the definition for × and <,> too

[–] affiliate@lemmy.world 27 points 9 months ago (2 children)

× is the cartesian product and = {x, {x,y}} is the ordered pair of x and y. (i.e., if x is in X and y is in Y, then is the corresponding element of the cartesian product X × Y). hope this helps

[–] rasensprenger@feddit.de 10 points 9 months ago (1 children)

What does type() mean here?

[–] affiliate@lemmy.world 21 points 9 months ago (2 children)

it's the "order type" of a well ordering on a set. so, given a set X with a total ordering R, type(X,R) is the unique ordinal isomorphic to (X,R)

[–] bort@feddit.de 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

what's with the square at the end? isn't that usually for proofs?

[–] affiliate@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago

yeah but sometimes when the textbook authors are feeling particularly mischievous they'll just put them in random places. and sometimes they'll even skip the proofs but keep the square.

[–] Lemjukes@lemm.ee 8 points 9 months ago

Give it up for op actually out here answering questions like a real live teacher.

[–] Sasha@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 9 months ago

Oh wow, I should know that... Thanks

[–] JackRiddle@sh.itjust.works 4 points 9 months ago

× is the cartesian product I think, no clue what the other thing is tho

[–] Pretzilla@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago
[–] hips_and_nips@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

This is giving me PTSD flashbacks from Number Theory at uni. What a fascinating mindfuck.

[–] affiliate@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

oh god number theory.... the things they make you do in that class.......

[–] yetAnotherUser@feddit.de 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] riodoro1@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Im sorry, but the capital form alone justifies its existence.

[–] Ragdoll_X@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Is this from Principia Mathematica or smth?

[–] Sop@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 9 months ago

This looks like classical ordinal set theory in relatively modern notation. I’d guess that Principia Mathematica uses batshit notation compared to this but I haven’t read it.