3 is a sideways nutsack
Comment on It'll be ok. Nobody's going to judge you.
yesman@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
It’s not like the regular numbers behave themselves. Have you ever heard a coherent, non-self referential definition of the number 3?
QuantumSparkles@sh.itjust.works 4 hours ago
bhamlin@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
W is a nutsack getting elaborately crushed
arctanthrope@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
the only numbers that actually exist are 0 and 1. everything else is a reference to those
spicehoarder@lemmy.zip 6 hours ago
I can define zero as the absence of 1. But also 1 itself is a reference to the infinitely fractional 0.00…1 and I’d consider that a different number to the whole number 1
arctanthrope@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
that doesn’t actually exist in the standard number system; there is no single real number that’s immediately next to 0, you can always get closer. some number systems have infinitesimals, but real numbers don’t. and any very small real number with a terminating decimal expression is simply the inverse of a very large number, which is simply a long string of 1+1+1+1+1…
ProfessorScience@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
λ f. λ x. f (f (f x))
BlackRoseAmongThorns@slrpnk.net 3 hours ago
Succs to succ.
anise@awful.systems 6 hours ago
{{},{{}}} (I think)
WilloftheWest@feddit.uk 5 hours ago
That would be 2. 3 would be {{},{{}},{{},{{}}}}.
IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
3 = . . .
gezero@sopuli.xyz 6 hours ago
It’s 2 plus 1
protist@retrofed.com 3 hours ago
Oh yeah? Prove it