• davidgro@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    6 hours ago

    On the other hand, he Doesn’t think you can double a sphere by cutting it into 5 pieces and reassembling them, so there’s that.

  • Tilgare@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    94
    ·
    10 hours ago

    The bait and switch on this one really caught me off guard and gave me a great laugh. Good post.

  • edinbruh@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Finite games are all definite, either player 1 as a winning strategy or player 2 has, all other “outcomes” are just mental illnesses. Get over it, math doesn’t care about your feelings.

          • SeptugenarianSenate@leminal.space
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 hours ago

            whoever needs to use the bathroom first loses, or if you die of thirst or hunger, that could also disqualify one from such a theoretically limitless dilemma.

            Alternately, if you have a mathematical way to measure boredom, and also introduce a rule that the person to truly become bored with the game first (or more bored, measured quantitatively somehow) would actually win automatically after a draw… or the game could just be determined by some arbitrary momentary measure of chaotic systems outside the game that the players can’t see or affect, and then giving the win to one of the players based on some hidden scoring matrix of outside variables probing purely environmental or coincidental variables, to generate an arbitrary-enough-seeming-to-the-players (though not likely enough for the mathematicians) winner, in the event of a repeated draws which outnumber the lower of the two single largest numbers that each player could think of, probed proper to match before each challenge, unbeknownst to the players, that way they cannot strategize to give a dishonest answer to affect play somehow towards their advantage (by saying a lower number than the highest possible [countable-to-by-this-person] number that they had ever actually been taught to count up to)

  • TomMasz@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    10 hours ago

    I thought I understood sets until I saw a show on PBS where a guy showed how there were different infinities using them and I realized I knew nothing.

  • Zizzy@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Ok, i dont understand this level of math, but cant you force a win in a 2 player game of non-infinite moves? Why wouldnt you be able to? Genuinely asking

  • FishFace@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Hey now, just because someone isn’t pro-choice doesn’t mean they’re pro-AD. Honestly, people nowadays think everyone who disagrees with them on one thing must have every unhinged belief under the sun.

      • FishFace@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 hours ago

        The axiom of determinacy, which implies some of (or all?) of the statements in op, and is more or less stated at the end. AD implies ~AC but they’re not equivalent.

    • woodenghost [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Sure, why just this morning I got me a second car by choosing five sets of points of my old car and rotating them around a bit in my garage. No, you can’t see it, it was uh… a non constructive job. (jk I don’t own a car, or a garage for that matter)