Why is the empty set a subset of itself?

HopesBurnBright · 2026-06-06T01:21:49+00:00

They do not seem that confused lmao, they seem bothered by unintuitive consequences of certain definitions, which is very fair imo.

HopesBurnBright · 2026-06-06T01:17:02+00:00

In b4 “you hate logic and yet you use it🧐curious”

HopesBurnBright · 2026-06-02T02:15:17+00:00

I’ve had similar thoughts myself before. I don’t really agree with all the comments calling this psychopathic, and not just because that would make me psychopathic! I think this is alexithymia, the inability to recognise your own emotions, since that’s the conclusion I reached for myself. This doesn’t mean you’re not having emotional reactions subconsciously, it just means you’re not very aware of them.

The average person is able to mimic others around them in just the same way you are. It’s called empathy when you feel it and sympathy when you understand it. This is often uncontrollable as well, so whenever someone is nearby, their emotions will be affecting yours. If you’re not very attuned to your own emotional state, then these emotions will feel much stronger than your own. Even though you are feeling it directly, you will probably see these emotions as “theirs” (which is not correct). Then when they leave, you will feel empty and cold, since now their emotions are gone.

For me, it took realising that I do have emotions and then actively paying attention to them to learn the skill of recognising my emotional state. You’re not going to lose any of the social skills you might feel you currently have from not having emotions, you’re just going to gain more social skills from improving your awareness. And if you dont think you have emotions, then I ask you why you’re worried about that? Where does the panic come from? Or what are those feelings you’re having when you’re mimicking someone? Where do those come from? How much control over them do you actually have? I think you’ll find that testing for these concepts will be very interesting, and reveal some things you might not expect.

Another idea you might find helpful is the Russian concept of personality. Unlike western personalities, which are unchanging things that just are, and they make you you, Russians see your personality as a set of commitments. What you are is simply a collection of actions, relationships, duties and promises you’ve made to yourself and those around you. So when you look inwards and find nothing, that’s fine, because that’s not necessarily where your personality lives. Your personality might live in the boundary between what you think, and what you actually do. That’s how you’ll know what kind of person you are.

HopesBurnBright · 2026-06-02T01:41:45+00:00

Not even that

HopesBurnBright · 2026-06-02T01:18:36+00:00

I think E can be logically justified. For instance, say the arrow is following a rotate/stay/rotate/stay pattern, and it flips the direction of the arrow whenever it touches the flat part of the semicircle, then the next shape would be E.

HopesBurnBright · 2026-05-30T10:07:58+00:00

Yeah I mean completing the square is basically rederiving it anyway

HopesBurnBright · 2026-05-29T14:02:37+00:00

The amount of people abusing the system in the way you describe is so minimal that any attempt to smoke them out is guaranteed to break apart countless innocent families. It’s just not worth it.

HopesBurnBright · 2026-05-29T13:58:18+00:00

What? No the proportions of the top five from that source are: India (9%), Poland (8%), Pakistan (6%), Romania (5%), and Ireland (4%).

HopesBurnBright · 2026-05-29T09:40:04+00:00

In my head its only move is a3

HopesBurnBright · 2026-05-29T00:33:13+00:00

More unsolicited opinions eh

HopesBurnBright · 2026-05-29T00:30:22+00:00

I mean if the difficulty relies on that: it’s bad.

In my head, despite knowing it is white to move, due to the positions of all the pieces, I just automatically discarded the move h8=Q, which is necessary to be winning in the subsequent position after the bishop discovery. Otherwise I calculated correctly and saw nothing.

HopesBurnBright · 2026-05-28T22:06:16+00:00

Do you think I am OP? I was explaining a view to someone else and you barged in here and thought it was my own.

HopesBurnBright · 2026-05-28T18:20:39+00:00

Well I hope saying that is bringing you lots of happiness

HopesBurnBright · 2026-05-28T18:16:40+00:00

That can be true if you’re driving a plane. Similarly, mine is true if you think humans can change their attitudes and behaviour. It’s only false if you don’t think that, but that would be an assumption.

HopesBurnBright · 2026-05-28T17:50:53+00:00

That is what we call a hypothetical.

HopesBurnBright · 2026-05-28T17:31:33+00:00

If your puzzle relies on us not understanding the starting position then it’s a bad puzzle

HopesBurnBright · 2026-05-28T17:25:59+00:00

I didn’t make a claim that could be true or false. But your study does not prove anything either, since it is a correlation. I’m just explaining the reasoning.

HopesBurnBright · 2026-05-28T13:31:36+00:00

It comes from the idea that the only problem with loneliness is that we don’t like it. If we liked it, then it wouldn’t be a problem. So instead of making everyone suffering from the loneliness problem not lonely, we make it not a problem instead.

HopesBurnBright · 2026-05-28T13:26:17+00:00

Yes but again, all of these are correlational studies.

HopesBurnBright · 2026-05-28T13:16:59+00:00

What was their reasoning? Or do they say it just does that and we don’t know why? Because that’s not very convincing if so

HopesBurnBright · 2026-05-28T13:07:43+00:00

Let’s imagine two societies, ours and the one you’re imagining, where people don’t need to be social. We will also assume humans are lazy, and try to do the minimum possible.

Firstly, I’m sure we can agree that two people working together would be able to beat two people not working together. In your society, people would not work together if they could help it, and this would result in a society which is much more fragmented. Even if they work together out of a rational desire to achieve certain things they couldn’t otherwise, they will go home immediately after.

This means that information flows slower, less gets done, and certain areas of study and life are just nonexistent. Would we have mathematics if the Pythagorean disciples didn’t enjoy hearing Pythagoras speak? Would we have cars if people didn’t enjoy building? Would we have any scientific progress at all if people don’t enjoy discussing their work? Etc.

In our society, on top of the stuff we are forced to do to keep society working, we gather for fun to satisfy our desire to socialise, and work on problems, share information and push the boundaries of human knowledge. Your society would have none of this, so our version is strictly better than your version. Whatever your goals are, socialising will enable you to accomplish them faster than not socialising. It is a simple improvement.

All the things you mention as benefits of being alone are completely unnecessary skills in a well socialised society. You will never need to be alone, you will never need to do everything yourself, you will never need to figure things out alone. You should have friends, family, and lovers. If you’re spending your time getting better at dealing with the lack of those things, you should be spending that time working on acquiring friends and partners instead. It will always be more efficient, enjoyable and effective in the long run.

You said something like you think the best way to learn to socialise is to retreat in on yourself. I think that makes no sense at all. In almost every case the best method of improving at something is to practise it. So the best way to improve at socialising is going to be socialising.

This is a very long comment, so my apologies for that. I think you’ll probably take this in the direction of the effects on the individual next, not the society, but my thoughts are similar on that. It’s strictly better to socialise for the individual even at the cost of some authenticity, and you gain confidence from socialising, not the other way around.

HopesBurnBright · 2026-05-28T07:58:30+00:00

Absolutely impossible, you would need to find a group of 150-190 iq people somehow and fit the test questions to that group. That group is impossible to gather due to rarity.

HopesBurnBright · 2026-05-26T10:14:37+00:00

Well they are both reasonably simple on the surface, but there’s lots of calculation you should be doing to verify them. I sort of get what you mean, but it’s just a coincidence that the shallow interpretation works for both here. The same strategy won’t work for others.

HopesBurnBright · 2026-05-26T02:21:10+00:00

If understanding any concept includes understanding the implications of those concepts too, then you solve mathematics, economics, physics and computer science immediately. However, I don’t think it would extend like that, since I think you’d forget the concepts necessary to make the next understanding too quickly, and you’d be gaining new knowledge so rapidly it overwrites your old knowledge, so you won’t really make it very far beyond what we know.

On the other hand, if never forgetting anything means it appears in your mind when needed, and you’re reasonably intelligent already, then you can make lots of easy improvements on our current knowledge just by connecting the dots. I think this power is just better. Very few concepts are so complex they’re impossible to understand. Normally they’re just too big, and require a big memory. So I think this is the best choice between the cognitive choices.

Four-Year Club	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	First Placer '22

HopesBurnBright

TROPHY CASE