You must log in or # to comment.
When people give me a range from 1 to X I always pick 1 to poop on the party
I always pick a transcendental irrational number. If they make the mistake to only ask me for a number it’s gonna be complex. What do you mean, “is it greater than 5?”? What the hell is “great than”???
This is fun, I will do this from now on
Or if they expect that, go for a quaternion instead!
When I’m watching TV with friends I like to leave the volume at 9, 11, 17… numbers like that, and then act like they are the crazy ones if they get annoyed
My phone used to increment the sound by 2 notches per clicks and that pissed me off so much I couldn’t have the one in the middle 😭
Chaos 👌
Am I the only one that doesn’t care what the volumes at? if I can hear it and it isn’t too loud idc if its even, odd or ending in 5/0
I only care if I can hear and I consider myself fairly normal. In the car, 9 is usually where I can hear my podcasts over the road noise. 8 and I miss words. 10, and it eventually gets unpleasant. On the TV, I don’t know: I run all the audio through a tuner and it’s hard to see the numbers from the couch. Besides, I think it measures in dB, which I don’t understand. For most shows, I think it’s somewhere in the -30s.
I don’t even look at the number, I just listen
Wow, look at this showoff using their ears to listen! I bet you don’t even need subtitles to hear better.
It’s true 😏
I used to be like that, but my current setup changes the volume by a lot with only one number. 7 ish if my gf is asleep, 10 otherwise. 12+ if there’s a lot of noise elsewhere. Was annoying at first, but now I don’t care, so I guess the curse has finally been lifted
you seem to be neurodivergent, normal people can only do evens and multiples of 5.
I’ve never seem someone who cared
1 is equally likely random number on that range
I’m going to make an effort to never pick 7 again.
well real numbers are uncountable, but the set of numbers you can think of and describe is still countable
Is it? I could be convinced but I’m going to need a proof before I believe that
It’s obvious after the chapter and left unexplained as an exercise for the reader
You have the explanation, but more precisely: the set of definable real numbers is countable, because a mathematical definition can be encoded as a finite sequence of mathematical symbols (of which thereare only finitely many), and so there are only countably many definitions.
Hence most real numbers are undefinable.
By the way, there is a simple proof that all natural numbers are definable: if not, then there is a smallest undefinable number. But “the smallest undefinable natural number” would then be a definition of that number :)
I thought that all self referencing proofs are trouble since Russell’s paradox
That is true. Naturals are explicitly constructible by definition anyway, but Russell’s paradox applies to the concept of “interesting numbers” and is why they can’t be well-defined. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interesting_number_paradox
the set of finite length natural language sentences is countable.
The school house rock cd rom did not cover this topic in funky number land
My favorite number is 43758.5453 I picked it at random.
OMG! Same!
Anyone else on team φ
It’s technically infinite, but the set of numbers we can express (in a reasonable timeframe), while large, is finite.
![Math Master! [Bob the Angry Flower]](https://lemmus.org/pictrs/image/5b83153f-91b7-46a5-b76b-c28591c72977.webp){kind=link}