I was hoping for one or two other people to respond to your new idea before redoing things with it included. There seemed to be full consensus about wanting to go ahead with a reboot but these extra ideas have had a relatively low response rate and are disconnected enough from the original premise that they could easily alienate people if implemented without their input.
Yes and no, respectively. There are of course many ways of being smart, only one of which is being able to communicate deep concepts, but communication of anything let alone deep concepts should always use the most concise yet precise words possible, all of which should be either known to the listener or explained to the listener. You can use terms like 'quantum tunneling' if you really want to, but the best thing to do would be to describe particles 'jumping' from one state to another before introducing the frankly formidable term itself, so as to not turn off those listening or make them feel inferior to you. Awfully many tropes about intellect these days actually originated as modes which a sizable populace of moderately informed people use to make themselves seem superior to all around them. I myself much prefer using smaller words when explaining larger concepts, so nobody realises I'm subliminally learning them quantum physics until it's too late to zone out. Maquillage is a good one I learnt recently, as is comminute. The former means 'makeup, especially theatrical or applied in excess', while the latter is a very niche technical term for 'reduce to dust, disintegrate'. 'Ambsaces' is a very rare one meaning 'two aces'/'snake eyes' and by extension bad luck. I have seen the finale triad, but no more than that, sadly. My internet is a constant plague in this regard. You're 60% water and you're important, so by transitivity water is also important. It is the physical manifestation of the metaphysical Relation known as the Dual Triad. Two distinct types of object (hydrogen and oxygen) connected to each other in a 1-2-1 pattern perfectly model such associated relations as marriage (human-God-human) and the interactions of most forms of matter (fermion-boson-fermion, in general). Don't hold me to this philosophy I am ethically obliged to come up with original responses Genesis 1:1 is the best answer you're going to get, methinks. Interestingly enough the Spirit hovered over the face of the waters before the First Day had even begun.
Ithkuil is cool
Welcome back to another episode of Technically I'm Correcterer, hosted by yours truly, the two and only Duality!
Today we'll be talking about a question every kid argues about and every adult gives patronising but wrong answers to!
'Is infinity plus one equal to infinity?'
Now, let's get a couple of things out of the way. Firstly, if you respond without clarifying which infinity they're talking about, you're automatically wrong. Secondly, if you deflect the question by claiming that infinity isn't a number, you're automatically wrong and also your general knowledge is hundreds of years out of date.
Infinity is not only a number but many numbers, all of different and rapidly increasing size. There are so many infinities that they exceed the very notions of many-ness and size and thus cannot be conceptually quantified in terms of some biggest infinity. As an aside, there is also no biggest infinity, so if you claim there's no biggest number you're not wrong but also you are wrong because you're using that as an argument against the existence of the smallest infinity which exists just as much as normal numbers do because they're constructed using the same mathematical axioms. The existence of the smallest infinity is also provable by observing the number displayed on the scales when your mom steps on it.
There are three main types of infinity which may be being referenced by this question. Firstly there are ordinal infinities, which are the numbers you count up to when you count every object in an infinite sequence. Secondly, there are cardinal infinities, which are the numbers you talk about when you talk about how many objects in total there are in an infinite sequence (by a sad twist of fate ordinal numbers and cardinal numbers only coincide for finite sequences). Thirdly, there is the sideways-eight überinfinity that denotes the Class of All Infinities (all of them put together).
Now for the part you've all been waiting for!
An ordinal infinity is less than itself plus one. A cardinal infinity is equal to itself plus one. And the Überinfinity isn't a number at all because there are too many infinities not to max themselves out, and adding the number 1 to a non-number is like adding the number 1 to a papaya!
That's all for today, folks! Go forth and be More Correcterer!
Also tune in next week please my ratings are falling faster than you can say negative gradient
- Show previous comments 2 more
You're showing your mortality, dear Duality.
See, Infinity is a concept. Proper context of aforesaid question denotes a specified Infinity and thusly the simplest answer of namely numbers. Alas, but numbers themselves are fully conceptualized. One can not hold up a singular entity as Five and point this being the five. Only a representation of things being grouped into what the mortal mind denotes as being assigned to the amount corresponding to that number. Therefore, Infinity is a collection concept of collected concepts. Self-perpetuating and only holding meaning within the mind that choses to direct effort into conceiving of it.
Effectively, self-proving it wrong by means of self-perpetuation.
All human concepts are effectively wrong by their basest state.
One would not bottle up the concept of the color Grey and sell it to others so they could experience true Greyness. (Note to self, new business idea.) To whit, since you brought it up, you are already Wrong.
Wrongness, of course also being a Concept, but I called you it and being the being that formed that utterance's meaning henceforth win and can feel superior in this moment.
Oh yes, I had an Orm for a teacher once! She was great! Apart from the many times we had to find a substitute to replace her when she frequently disapparated from the Space-Time Continuum! Oh, those whacky Orms!
You show far more bias than me, good sir. You're holding to a radical realist philosophical position, summed up by the 'if you can't hold one up and point to it it doesn't exist' perspective. This is actually quite a minority view among scientists, mathematicians, philosophers, etc., due to its extremely narrow-minded (read: heavily biased) insistence on 'holding up and pointing to' (and at any rate, the fact that beings like us can't hold up and point to concepts has no bearing on whether there exist beings that can do so in some parallel form of existence).
Everything you know and love is a concept, insofar as all we know about the universe surrounding us is via sensory inputs translated into coherent experience by our minds. Just because we can't see, hear, or smell it doesn't mean it doesn't exist and regardless of whether something exists in concrete form you can't say whatever you like about it anyway. Things can be true or false if said about concepts just as much as they can be true or false if said about assemblages of sensory inputs - and what promotes the objects of nasal stimulation above the objects of mental stimulation anyway? Why is it that what I smell you call more real than what I think about, given that thought forms the core of my existence? Why are you, in short, so biased towards self-evidently irrational sensations as opposed to rational thoughts? What evidence do you have that what we call the physical universe exists when nobody's sensing it any more than numbers dissolve into nonexistence when nobody's thinking about them?
Furthermore, 'goodness' is a concept. However, if you said 'eating babies is a good thing' you'd either be a liar or a madman depending on whether you knew that such a statement is false. 'Infinity' is a concept - so are finite numbers, and you can't say whatever you like about them either. 1 + 1 makes 2 by the axioms of mathematics, and if you said otherwise you'd be just as rejected by people who know who they're talking about as if you said eating babies is the pinnacle of morality. The same axioms of mathematics that say 1 + 1 = 2 include infinity as a direct consequence, even the most basic among them. Peano's axioms are some of the simplest around (only dealing with whole numbers), and even they include the Axiom of Infinity stating that there exists at least one infinite set - otherwise you'd have to add a whole lot of convoluted numerical detours to define the set of whole numbers properly.
I can say things about concepts that are true and things about concepts that are false. Grey is a colour between black and white on the monotone spectrum. Grey is not a shade between red and mauve on the RGB colour gamut. The only difference between the infinities and finite numbers is that you can count to finite numbers. Concepts do not have to be demonstrably formed in physical reality (e.g., counted to) to be considered 'valid'. Concepts by definition are independent of demonstrable forms in physical reality. I can therefore say true and false things about infinity. True: there is not just one infinity, there are more than infinite of them. False: your mom's weight is less than infinity.
Reality is in the eye of the beholder.
By mortals' merit, it is equated that the more defined characteristics of something there is the more it is both described as being physical and therefore "Real." We smell an orange, taste an orange, rhyme things with orange, describe it as having the color of orange. Because of these relations to other things in our perceived reality that are, in turn, also defined by their relations to other things, we view it as more concrete in its physicality.
The line is blurred further going into concepts. 1+1=2 and among other things, we can have numbers interact in as equally perceived realistic terms. But numbers relate less so to direct sensual interaction; we cannot eat the number two. This does make the concept of numbers less real than an orange, but more real than the concept of Justice or the difference between Right & Wrong. I would intone that the less capacity you have to interact with a concept point defined as singular, makes it less "real" on a personal, case-by-case basis. Certainly I am not arguing anything so simple as "if you can't eat it, it ain't real" despite my thoughts on which numbers might prove to be more delicious than others.
We claim an orange has the quality of being colored orange because of the mortal assumption that we know what others quantify as the color and having had equitable sensory input the same as our own. This can be extended to mathematical equation as well. While provable in a great many ways, the mathematical systems may vary wildly in other worlds, other dimensions. In my being wrong as to how numbers equal out to, if steadfast in my view of how I sense those numbers coming together, am I any different in my numerical sensory systems then your own standpoint on how that has been proven by your peers? Does not my wrongness prove as equally real as your rightness? For example:
3 X 3 = Bleventy-Floog!
Do notice my not arguing the weight of mah momma.
fun fact: turtles can breathe through their cloacas
- Show previous comments 13 more
Why would my own life satisfaction impact how I felt about this other person? What an odd correlation
I'll summarize my feelings thusly: in a world where no one can agree on the most obvious of issues, it's nice to know that 1 + 1 will always equal 2, and ax^2 + bx + c will always equal 0 where x = [-b ± (b^2 - 4ac)^.5]/2a
Of course it's odd I only detected it after several iterations of subliminal metastudies detailing your emotional state. The sample set is about fifty times larger than your conscious memory
Unfortunately with the help of proof theory you can argue about that too. All maths is based on axioms which are taken to be true for no readily apparent reason so people argue pretty intensely about which axioms to use and why they should be used. On the bright side nobody can argue about an issue like that without decades of formal training so it's not as widespread an issue as most other things
Try new Chunky Oxygen Flavor!! Feel the new brand of Air from Widdershins's new Chaos Brand products!
Goes down hard, and sticks healthily to your anterior cavities!*
*Motto still in progress. Chaos Inc. not held responsible for causes of death apart from reharvesting of organs.
- Show previous comments 7 more
Acre Zero is where the Theorhetical Beasts live.
We don’t know where it is, how to get there or what it does. All we know is that the original founder that started up this infinite landmass, Farmer Zeta, divided by zero there n’ disappeared.
But still not the biggest issue we done had! Not since... The Thing from Acre 21!!
Objection: you're dissing me about making objective statements about infinity and yet you have infinity acres yourself. One of which was the result of dividing by zero, no less.
Out of curiosity, which infinity do you have of acres? Aleph-null seems the most likely size of infinity, especially given that your acres seem to be labelled by whole numbers, but it could be aleph-one or higher.
Primarily, that's the gag. See, I mean to intone that its randomly run. There's far too much land made for farming than is feasible for any singular entity to keep track of. Plots of land are designated for use for things as they come up just as often as new plots are found already in use for things Widdershins and whatever hired, local beings never intended.
It ain't supposed tah make sense, Yo. Dat why it funny. ...Yo.
There's very likely decimalic acres as well. Somehow existing in the acres on either side of it, heh! Like, one acre doesn't have to be reliably, mathematically opposite of another and land plotting may wander at random. Randomness is priority here.
...and no, LOLRandom is something I find absolutely different and detestable. There be a difference, yo!~
Beware of the mummy!
Not because it's an ancient creature of the crypt, but because it holds to a neo-Freudian morality and it takes its designator in the familial sense.
Duality changed their profile photo
I myself am not particularly fond of that trope, particularly in the context of RPing. There's a colossal inherent power /knowledge asymmetry between the magic people and the mundane fish-out-of-water people - it's a vaguely tacky way to make the magic people seem specialer and it's an overbearing cliché of an exposition technique. Even with that aside, who would want to play the people from this earth? They're basically in for being a perpetual monologue crutch, and judging by the general reaction to Miko's somewhat monologuey class there's not much demand for that sort of character interaction. If they're just relegated to NPC status it would be even cheaper - ourselves blindly tooting our own horn in lieu of making half-decent self-sufficient characters, world and story. I've seen plenty of extraordinary creativity and magic use in this RP and all of it has been through simple exploration of characters and their relationships with others on the same level as them. Creativity is not about breaking every limit set before you but about creating perfection within the countless limits imposed on you by yourself and others.