TIL it’s an open problem whether there exists a polynomial bijection from Q to QxQ and therefore apparently a very very difficult question. who knew?

they don’t tell you that virtually every concept surrounding continuity works on functions from Q to Q. they don’t tell you this because they want you to be ignorant and afraid.

so interesting:

nobody ever talks about the complex-ish numbers as QxQ everybody’s all “nooooooo you need to go from Q to R and THEN to C noooooo you have to do it in that order!” but like … you don’t :/

teacher: “what is a number?” student: “a number is a connected component of the terminal sub-bicategory of the 2-category of finitary endofunctors on the-“ [teacher shoots student in the face. the rest of the class is frozen in shock and fear.] teacher: “anybody else? what is a number?”

twitter is for hate scrolling the collapse of the west. nostr is for mathslop. this is a mathslop account now 👍

the first number is zero and the second number- wait no, that sounds dumb-

I thought this was kinda cool. bummer Claude can’t access a real dictionary. if anybody wants to suggest a basis of English under definitional closure, that would be pretty dope: https://claude.ai/share/86a61607-41fc-4e55-b6ba-bcc8dad0db4f

honestly can’t stand people who say “the calculus”. I don’t think there is anything in bitcoin that annoys me this much …

lex friedman just did a podcast on (pretty much) my undergrad thesis so I forgive him for being a bit dumb on other things and I encourage you all to waste nearly 4 hours on this so we can be better friends:

y’all keen on homotopy type theory or we sticking with ZFC for now?

you can actually just ignore the current thing

Gödel’s third incompleteness theorem is that any sufficiently complex pseudo-intellectual thoughtwank is incomplete without nonsensical reference to the first two theorems.