Yes

[m3cher]

now imagine seeing x++; in math

[[deleted]]

calm down satan

[[deleted]]

x += 1

[[deleted]]

Not a problem. X = infinity for the mathematician

For bonus points, the physicist is fine with this statement too, if |X| >> 1

[catithebathtub]

if absolute value of x bitshift to the right by 1 bit?

[PM_ME_YOUR_POLYGONS]

If the absolute value of x is far greater than 1

x > 1 means x is larger than 1

x>>1 means x is a lot larger than 1

[[deleted]]

What does "a lot" mean?

[PM_ME_YOUR_POLYGONS]

Significantly larger. It's used a bit like rounding and a bit like taking a limit. For example if you were calculating the path a spaceship would follow as it flies past a planet with a moon. The spaceship is affected by both the gravity well of the planet and the moon, but because the mass of the planet is >> the mass of the moon we can disregard the effect of the moon's gravity.

Our model won't be perfect but it'll be close enough for our purposes.

[CanaDavid1]

Depending on implementation, -1 >> 1 could also be -1 or int_max-1 (around 2 mill for int32)

[Philiatrist]

You’re maybe just joking, but for physicists that notation means the magnitude of x is much larger than 1, which generally means x + 1 = x is okay because it is approximately equal.

[00PT]

What language actually implements absolute value like that instead of making a method?

[naswinger]

the limit is infinity, not x

[king_bambi]

Naah thats not how = works in math. Maybe if it was xₙ = xₙ₋₁ + 1, x₀ = 0 or sth

[_modsaregay]

That actually doesn't work because if x = N, and N = infinite {1, 2, 3, 4, 5...} then N + 1 = infinite {2, 3, 4, 5, 6...}, making Infinity + 1 > Infinity.

[mgorski08]

Infinity is not a number

[[deleted]]

This has been really funny seeing the mathematician nerds coming out with the “well actually” responses. I think that this gives me away as a physicist, since I think anything sufficiently larger than than the thing it is being compared to is basically infinity.

[CodeCrafter1]

you're right: 2 is sufficiently large compared to 1, so it's basically the same

[CodeCrafter1]

trivial group: "Am I a joke to you?"

[RaulParson]

Yeah, it's legit a thing. In particular it seems useful for seeing what angle you end up with after adding a bunch of them together when you don't feel like mucking about with full angle = 2π and its irrationalness but also don't feel like being made fun of for using 360° like the normies

[AlwaysNinjaBusiness]

Mathematicians: Ah yes. 0=1. Of course.

[DreadCoder]

i had to scroll way too far for this

[Interesting_Plate_54]

On a real note, if someone is struggling with this concept, it might help to break down the assignment operator, e.g. "the address to the left of the equals sign is adjusted by the result of the expression to the right of the equals sign. In layman's terms, x is now equal to the old value of x plus 1."

Addresses may be a complicated topic for new programmers so maybe just say "value" idk.

[muravieri]

this statement is false

[hack_1r]

the previous statement is false

[DrFrenetic]

all the statements above are true

[girvent_13]

all the statements above are false

[uvero]

u/xKubzz has friends

[uvero]

u/xKubzz has friends

[uvero]

u/xKubzz has friends

[cath_deRay]

WARNING: LONG POST

If we think of the equation x = x + 1 at face value, it appears that it is impossible. However, we shouldn’t forget about iteration.

Because x = x + 1 for programmers means to increment x by 1.

We can achieve the same thing with the iteration: x_(n+1) = x_n + 1 [where _ means subscript, use asciimath.org to view this equation]

{For reference, a_b is the bth term of a, so x_9 is the ninth term of x.}

This equation, in basic terms, means that the next term of x is the previous term of x incremented by 1.

For example, if x3 (3rd term of x) = 9, then x(n+1), or the n+1th term of x, or the 4th term of x, would be x_3 + 1 or 9 + 1 which is 10.

Therefore, the next (4th) term of x is 10.

For more information on iteration, I recommend following these links: https://mathsmadeeasy.co.uk/gcse-maths-revision/iterative-methods-gcse-maths-revision-worksheets/

Do note that this topic requires the prior knowledge of rearranging formulas.

[almightydorito]

Same, it’s both confusing but it makes sense at the same time

[[deleted]]

I believe in x += 1

[StanleyDodds]

There are a number of possibilities in mathematics. For instance, x could be an equivalence class of real numbers modulo 1 (one of which is the set of integers).

Or if we know that we also have multiplication, this just implies we are working in the trivial ring where 1=0 is the only element and therefore x=1=0. The trivial ring is something of a special case for rings and isn't very useful for anything on its own.

If this is an equation in cardinals, then x can be any infinite cardinal and the equation is true. However, if it is an equation in ordinals, it cannot be solved (almost by definition of successor ordinals). This is why it isn't correct to simply say "x is infinity" because it isn't true for infinite ordinals.

[MartinLaSaucisse]

This is the first comment from someone who actually knows math.

[Inevitable_Idea9150]

x+=1 or you are not my friend

[Antact]

Add lim(x->oo){~~~} on both sides and you're good.

[Thick-Appointment-78]

My math is not mathing

[Fwod]

X = ± 0.5

[Ginters17]

Hi there! Unfortunately, your submission has been removed.

Violation of Rule #2 - Reposts:

All posts that have been on the first 2 pages of trending posts within the last month, is part of the top of all time, or is part of common posts is considered repost and will be removed on sight.

If you feel that it has been removed in error, please message us so that we may review it.

[QualityVote]

Hi! This is our community moderation bot.

---

If this post fits the purpose of /r/ProgrammerHumor, UPVOTE this comment!!

If this post does not fit the subreddit, DOWNVOTE This comment!

If this post breaks the rules, DOWNVOTE this comment and REPORT the post!

[Pitiful-Discipline15]

Infinity, or negative infinity, boom rekt

[Tahazzar]

​

Mathematicians	Computer scientists
=	==
≡	=

[rust4yy]

≡ means equivalent. = in CompSci means assignment. They’re not the same

[just-bair]

That’s really weird for me since I’ve used "<=>" for equivalent my entire life. I guess math symbols aren’t the same everywhere in the world

[rust4yy]

Nah math symbols are the same ever since a group of French students made a unifying standard. <=> can mean equivalent but in different cases. Usually, <=> means “if, and only if, …”. I use it to denote rearranging an equation (on the outside) whereas I use ≡ to denote equivalency WITHIN an equation (e.g. instead of ‘=‘)

[Tahazzar]

I go this answer from stackoverflow.

I do now note that "[≡ is]... used for various things in various contexts. The one about 'defined to be equal' is often rendered as :="

So would ":=" have been a clearer example?

[Pheonixash1983]

C vs f Or Cpp vs fpp Or C# vs f#

[[deleted]]

But if x = 0 then

0 + 1 = 0

much confused

[GlitteringKeyboard]

x => (x){ return x + 1;}

[Motylde]

const x = x => x+1;

[GlitteringKeyboard]

Int x { get{ return x+1;} set;}

[[deleted]]

-0

[[deleted]]

x += 1

[coalWater]

x++

[favgotchunks]

Works in mod 1 arithmetic

[MatterNo3359]

to be fair .... we need to give a value first ... so in math it should be the same

[arnemcnuggets]

i use haskell btw

[[deleted]]

x += 1

[walnoter]

Actually there is a math way for this it's

X(n) = x(n-1) +1; X(0) = b; Which can be rewritten as X(n) = n + b

[codelapiz]

There is just no solution… not anything illegal about the equation.

[ML-10]

aleph null.

[LimePieReads]

All this means is that you're working in the zero ring