• 0 Posts
  • 80 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 11th, 2023

help-circle


  • CompassRedtoMath Memes@lemmy.blahaj.zoneThose are rookie numbers
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    16 days ago

    My favorite version of this proof:

    Let S be the subset of natural numbers that are not interesting. Suppose by way of contradiction that S is inhabited. Then by the well ordering principle of natural numbers, there is a least such element, s in S. In virtue of being the least non interesting number, s is in fact interesting. Hence s is not in S. Since s is in S and not in S, we have derived a contradiction. Therefore our assumption that S is inhabited must be false. Thus S is empty and there are no non interesting numbers.


  • A group is not an algebra. A group consists of a single associative binary operation with an identity element and inverses for each element.

    A ring is an abelian (commutative) group under addition, along with an additional associative binary operation (multiplication) that distributes over addition. The additive identity is called zero.

    A field is a ring in which every nonzero element has a multiplicative inverse.

    A vector space over a field consists of an abelian group (the vectors) together with scalar multiplication by elements of the field, satisfying distributivity and compatibility conditions.

    A non-associative algebra is a vector space equipped with a bilinear multiplication operation that distributes over vector addition and is compatible with scalar multiplication.

    An (associative) algebra is a non-associative algebra whose multiplication operation is associative.

    You can read more about these definitions online and in textbooks - these are standard definitions. If you are using different definitions, then it would help your case to provide them so we can better understand your claims.











  • CompassRedtoComic Strips@lemmy.worldLife Goes On
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    I respectfully disagree. Its thesis is simply that you can have a better life if you stay alive. The “proof” is simply all the changes the artist went through in order to find a better life. The changes aren’t supposed to be a recipe on how to make your life better - I don’t think the artist is telling people to divorce their spouses. There isn’t anything “just be happy” about getting a divorce.




  • CompassRedtoMemes@midwest.socialThumbs up
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    That’s not true. There isn’t anything special about jury nullification. If it happens, it happens and that’s the end of the trial. If the jury is hung because some of the jury members wish to nullify and others don’t, then it will lead to a mistrial simply because the jury cannot come to a unanimous decision - not because of jury nullification. Of course, any verdict can be appealed as usual, but there’s no guarantee the appeal will be granted - even in the case of jury nullification.