fossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 1 month agonear zeromander.xyzimagemessage-square109fedilinkarrow-up1746arrow-down115
arrow-up1731arrow-down1imagenear zeromander.xyzfossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 1 month agomessage-square109fedilink
minus-squareKillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 month agoi would argue that you can probably independently define an ordering mechanism. And then apply it. You can just pretend that 100 is 0. I see no reason this shouldn’t apply to everything else.
minus-squarecucumber_sandwich@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·1 month agoWhat do you mean by independent? There is no more general and independent notion of ordering than a less-than operator. The article above oulines a mathematical proof that no such definition exists in a consistent way for the complex numbers.
i would argue that you can probably independently define an ordering mechanism. And then apply it.
You can just pretend that 100 is 0. I see no reason this shouldn’t apply to everything else.
What do you mean by independent? There is no more general and independent notion of ordering than a less-than operator. The article above oulines a mathematical proof that no such definition exists in a consistent way for the complex numbers.