> To even claim the existence of negative numbers is to use a subtraction operator somewhere before you add it.
this is silly: if you have complex numbers, and multiplication, you can get subtraction out of it, and complex numbers are in a sense more fundamental than natural numbers so you should always start with complex numbers
if you start with complex numbers, you can get to negative numbers by i*i
i*i 2*i*i 3*i*i 4*i*i . . . and rational negative numbers by
> The standard way we construct the Complex Numbers *normally* goes kinda like this:
well yeah you can construct complex numbers but i'm assuming them as the fundamental counting blocks that all other mathematics are constructed with
> We don't "start" with the Complex Numbers, we actually do build them from other parts.
I mean, you could do it that way, too. If ease of construction is more important than truth connectiveness to reality. It's more of a preference thing.
ie you're starting with set theory and getting to complex numbers i'm saying: start with complex numbers and work your way to set theory
> If we do it your way and Complex Numbers become just fucking dust, then *all* of our math becomes garbage and we're totally fucked. The thing is that it is *entirely possible* that we're just completely fucking wrong about our axioms - they're *axioms* after all. We'd like very much for as much math to stay intact if we have to give up on an axiom, and we build it the way we do because we're more willing to accept "Real Numbers are garbage" than "no there aren't actually Natural Numbers."
of course, natural numbers are just complex numbers of a certain kind: complex numbers with angle = 0 / imaginary component = 0 / 2nd column = 0 /etc and which the "real" part / magnitude >= 0
ie if you grant complex numbers you can easily define reals / natural numbers. ie complex numbers are more fundamental.
@Moon@awl if i could have an exported copy in any form i would be ok with you deleting mine. i mean i'm expecting you to delete it anyway but if you can get an export it would be appreciated - esp non-text media /likes can be nuked at any time and i'm totally ok with that.
Entropy will win in the end, it's amazing when little bubbles of order erupt and do interesting things, like #SPC
All of this site is here because of @Moon , and of course the SPC users too, but mostly moon. Nearly a decade of a kind of social computing environment that could only happen under his wing, and due to his skill and wizardry (of course, with help from lain and other pleroma devs or whatever)
> I'll ignore for now the fact that I don't think most people can properly consent to taking a drug having a mere list of side effects.
wtf does that even mean
You can consent DURING A PANDEMIC to take an experimental cure/prophylactic where the 'full' data is not yet available. I certainly did. And so did people taking ivermectin. And there's nothing wrong with taking either.
As far as 'liability protection' generally in the US that is a US internal political issue and you can take that up with other americans IDGAF.
Awenen Niin?#1 most reported person on shitposter.club#1 reason cited why niu.moe was censored across the fediverse, and hence, the cause of the 'poor reputation' of niu.moe among narrow minded people, and plausible cause of its inevitable shutdown.#1 reason cited why todon.eu had to be defederated from / fediblocked for by other instances until they defederated from shitposter.club so people couldn't communicate with me anymore.Uregina B.Sc. CompSci '10 ูุงูุฑ 0Spirit / #Nastika / #เฎจเฎพเฎคเฏเฎคเฎฟเฎMember of the Free Software Foundation, the Bayesian conspiracy, and the Cult of R_0Rippler#somethingelseแฅแตแขแฟแแฅแแขแณแฝ / #Treaty6 / Turtle Island / #Jord / #Laniakeamusic-involved็ฝๅทฆ.ๆไธไบ่งฃไธญๅฝ.Ndocha.about jeff:"the biggest mansplainer I've ever met" - @Sherrizzle@pixey.org"Jeff needs a shorter bio." - @saskboy@mastodon.cc"The Fediverse is just Jeff Cliffs hellthread world and we're all living in it."-