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.
pro choice
Submitted 1 month ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/5398b169-84cd-4487-8a88-f9e55f6966b4.jpeg
Comments
edinbruh@feddit.it 1 month ago
Dupelet@piefed.social 1 month ago
That would be true, except draws exist
SeptugenarianSenate@leminal.space 1 month ago
Tie goes to winner of the next game, easy fix
okwhateverdude@lemmy.world 1 month ago
For games that allow that, yep
robot_dog_with_gun@hexbear.net 1 month ago
ViatorOmnium@piefed.social 1 month ago
Let’s play tic-tac-toe?
eestileib@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 month ago
All other outcomes are a collaborative aesthetic exploration of a game tree subject to a variety of constraints.
The joy of the game, and indeed the value of the game, does not consist simply of winning. Even in go.
TomMasz@piefed.social 1 month 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.
AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
I have a friend who had the license plate “ALEPH NUL” which I thought was good nerd humor.
Rusty@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
The movie theater in Futurama is called Lowe’s Aleph-Null-Plex.
davidgro@lemmy.world 1 month 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.
Zizzy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 month 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
Klear@quokk.au 1 month ago
Tic-tac-toe always ends in a draw with perfect play.
Zizzy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 month ago
Mmm, i did overlook the, very obvious in hindsight, draw outcome. Thanks
Venator@lemmy.nz 1 month ago
You could design a different game that does though. E.g. A Tic-tac-toe variant but the player who starts looses if it’s a draw.
trevdog@lemmy.world 1 month ago
assuming a draw condition is impossible maybe
BB84@mander.xyz 1 month ago
For a finite game with no draws you are indeed able to.
FishFace@piefed.social 1 month 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.
SuperEars@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I am behind the times on some abbreviations. And dense.
What is AD in this context?
FishFace@piefed.social 1 month 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.
tetris11@feddit.uk 1 month ago
If I open up a pack of biscuits, and we each take turns eating a biscuit, AD says that there’s a dominant strategy that can ensure that I eat the last biscuit. (e.g. there’s only 1 biscuit; I win, or there’s an odd number of biscuits; I win)
Collatz_problem@hexbear.net 1 month ago
If you are so pro-choice, you can split your balls into several pieces and reassemble them into three balls!
Cat_Daddy@hexbear.net 1 month ago
If you are so pro-choice, you can draw two parallel lines and they will always intersect at the horizon!
woodenghost@hexbear.net 1 month 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)
Venator@lemmy.nz 1 month ago
It’s been a while since I’ve done products of sets, but what if one of the sets in the product is a set of empty sets?
davidagain@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Then it’s not empty. If it were a union of empty sets, that would be empty.
serra@slrpnk.net 1 month ago
I hope that at least he believes in the Axiom of Choice.
tetris11@feddit.uk 1 month ago
For anyone wondering what this is
Bertrand Russell coined an analogy: for any (even infinite) collection of pairs of shoes, one can pick out the left shoe from each pair to obtain an appropriate collection (i.e. set) of shoes; this makes it possible to define a choice function directly.
For an infinite collection of pairs of socks (assumed to have no distinguishing features such as being a left sock rather than a right sock), there is no obvious way to make a function that forms a set out of selecting one sock from each pair without invoking the axiom of choice
So mathematicians always make the assumption that they can make a set from an infinite list of other sets based on this hunch, rather than any concrete choice function. And then they build mansions on top of this foundation, and use it score chicks and ferraris, smh
SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Another comment in the thread says that “isn’t pro-choice” is exactly about the rejection of the axiom.
davidgro@lemmy.world 1 month ago
… That’s the joke. (That he doesn’t)
mEEGal@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Fucking relatable !
I’m that guy
Tilgare@lemmy.world 1 month ago
The bait and switch on this one really caught me off guard and gave me a great laugh. Good post.