Comment on Euler's Meme
stevedice@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
Let M and f be as in the hypotheses of the meme.
Since f is a meme, then f∈M. That means f can be applied to itself. It follows that (f, f(f))∈f. We have then:
f ∈ {f, {f, f(f)}} = (f, f(f)) ∈ f
Thus, f∈f, violating the Axiom of Regularity. We conclude the meme is mathematical bullshit and I will not have it.
wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
One of your precepts is flawed. f is not a meme any more than the word “all” is in “all your base are belong to us”. f is defined by text within the overall meme, but while it is part of the meme, it is not the meme itself, as it lacks the content of the remainder of the meme. Your precept is like saying “9 is prime, because it is the prime number ‘19’”. 9 is not prime. It is part of the representation of the number 19. f is not the meme. It is part of the context which defines the meme.
stevedice@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
What? No, the image explicitly says f is a meme.
wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
I could me wrong, but I’m fairly sure that, while ‘f’ is a function, ‘f(x)’ is the function’s output, not the function itself. So f(x) is a meme, because function f’s output is a meme. The function itself is a mathematical operation.
stevedice@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Yep. Just read it again. You’re absolutely correct.