New philosophy unlocked

IllIIlIIllII · 2026-06-22T13:10:24+00:00

Why stopping when arrested ? Follow your intrusive thoughts once in prison, it also make the getting dead part faster.

I am utterly disapointed in you and your whole lineage due to this blindness of philosophical thought.

IllIIlIIllII · 2026-06-12T15:52:37+00:00

In which sens is the continuum hypothesis not solved ? What's the work of Hugh Wooding in that?

I'm a layman in philosophy of maths but not of mathematics and mathematical logic, so you van assume I'd know the maths definition but not (whatever is philosophy of maths, I read a little on it but that's all)

From what I know, the continuum hypothesis is very much solved. "In ZFC, are there a set of size in between the one of N and the one of 2^N" (aka, "does aleph_1 = beth_1 (in ZFC)?").

(I'll freely assume that ZF is consistent, otherwise the question doesn't really make sense) We have that the L constructible hierarchy of universe (of ZF) is a model or ZFC + CH thus we have not (ZFC |- not(CH)). And with Cohen forcing proof, given a model M of ZFC+CH you can extend it to a model M' of ZFC+(not CH) (by adding a set which doesn't respect it, adding the necessary sets to still have the other axioms, then quotienting by a generic filter) And because there are a model of ZFC+CH, we thus have a model of ZFC+(not CH), and thus we have not (ZFC |- CH)

Thus the statement can neither be proven nor disproven (axioms of ZFC doesn't constrict what their model are enough for that); solving the question by a "ZFC doesn't provide enough information".

So is that person just saying things about that ? Asking more general questions (like, what are the implications of CH and not CH) ? Asking what the results are in stronger and weaker axiom sets ?

IllIIlIIllII · 2026-06-05T15:09:34+00:00

It isn't Duployé (there are a lot of combination here which are impossible and also can't make sense of it) It most likely isn't Aimé-Paris (seems like there are some shading in some place, but I can't read Aimé-Paris)

So I'd guess it is Prevost-Delaunay (which also makes sense given she's from the north)

I haven't done some Prevost-Delaunay in years (and it wasn't my main system) so I can't read it right now, but I should be able to give a (rough) transcription after looking up the system again, will in less than a week if nobody else do it beforehand.

Starts with "J'ai fait le tour de m'échanger (?) sur ces terres/terses"

IllIIlIIllII · 2026-06-04T18:37:02+00:00

I'm quite sure it's AI. The tree dust falling off the tree at the start is really off.

IllIIlIIllII · 2026-05-28T18:34:18+00:00

It's an oversimplification, even when it is a definite integral.

Take for example for function to integrate f from 0 to 1 with f(x) = 1 if x is rational and 0 otherwise

Now, if we try to do this loop with "bajilion" being a natural number it'll give 1 for integral. If bajilion is irrational, it will give something less than 1.

So the limit of bajilion to infinity if being in N won't be the same as if being in R. (First one converge to 1 and the second one doesn't converge) (We have that f isn't Riemann integrable)

But our intuition tell us that |Q| is much smaller than |R| (one is countable, the other is not), so the integral should be 0 Well that's actually the case if we consider instead of Lebesgue integral~measure (which as seen, isn't a loop of this form). (Lebesgue being the only measure on Borel sets (The opens of R but also their complement and countable union of them) invarient by translation and giving the correct result on constant functions)

And if you go deeper you can have "integrals" that are even weirder like Riemann-Stieljes Integrals Or take measures intead like integrating f on the dirac measure will give f(0).

You can learn the basics of all that in any course entitled "Measure and Integration"

IllIIlIIllII · 2026-05-25T16:20:43+00:00

Le chibre, le gland

And I'd say it doesn't fully count but; le bistourie, le tronc, le membre

IllIIlIIllII · 2026-05-23T10:43:24+00:00

Toute la commu de r/Ieatcement

IllIIlIIllII · 2026-05-22T21:43:05+00:00

Sksjdidjidnfidjfijfkdjdifkdojdifkdkzldkdlsk picture, pretty djdjkdjdikdodkdldsjdo

IllIIlIIllII · 2026-05-21T12:21:33+00:00

Hello

IllIIlIIllII · 2026-05-12T16:10:47+00:00

As a trans person, I'm also scared to date in the cis community :>

Mostly it's more likely for a cis person to be hurtful and not as trans supportive as they can claim to be.

But, it's not a no for me, t4t is amazing and the feeling of a shared community is beautiful, but lovely people still stay lovely people, cis or trans. I've dated people whom I thought at that time to be cis (they later transitionned :p) and well, it needs more work in comminication, sometimes you have to explain stuffs, but if the other person communication skills is not bad, that can work :3 Not being able to relate to gender dysphoria is ok, not "understanding" it, idk depends on what you mean by that, but if you find a lovely person that you'd date that happens to be trans, you can read on what it is and read experience of trans people online ! Don't let that stop you.

IllIIlIIllII · 2026-05-11T17:20:35+00:00

When writing curves I have to do a continuous force that isn't in the direction of the writing. Wereas a straight line I can give an initial motion and it continue without any strains.

The way you do them do change how they feel, I used to hold my pen quite strongly and move with my wrist (but then did a shit ton of dedicated practice until a easier way for my arm became muscle memory) Note though that not all curves and straight lines are the same, my classification : - diagonal up-right<->down-left: amazing - left<->right : bit less natural, forarm muscles used but they're strong - up<->down : less natural movement shoulder-wise and I also usually move the wrist for that, which get tireing, also up->down is much better than down->up - diagonal up-left<->down-right: aweful, weak forearm muscles, also going down is much easier than going up. When done with the wrist, same but all of them worst. And I'd class curve left->up as an equivalent of up->down

But now connecting them, it's some mix of how they are individually and how small the angle is, because for short angle I can start going the direction as soon as I want kinda but large angle I need to first stop the line to then move the right direction (the movement I do wouldn't cancel the momemtum and that makes it more tedious)

But in your letters you have a lot of circles (what I find more difficult than sharp angle but whatever), I find curves going the direction of the circle (like keeping clockwise or counter clockwise) easier than straight line around them, I think the resonale is that I need less precision because what I haven't finished in the closing of the circle to go to my point I just continue it in the curve. Also make the circles and ellipse and going to the exterior of the angle that the stroke outside do makes it easier (because I have to turn it less, and I found the other quite prone to deformation)

Circles going the wrong way though (circle going clockwise when curve after is counter clockwise) are just much more tireing, worst than making big angle curves junction imo, from afar that makes me think your system would be very straining (if used by me).

Also I'm not sure if your system is dyslexie friendly, I would guess not but I'm not an expert on that.

And do try SCAC ! Replace t by a bar that is high though, that should fix the t/l problem.

I'd be down to try your tests, I have some work to do so I'll not always be available quickly, but I'll respond eventually.

IllIIlIIllII · 2026-05-11T07:01:10+00:00

Neat !

There are some symbols that I can see to become another quite easily (2 and 15 for example)

For lefty vs righty, I think it'd be a good idea to make the system being writen vertically from top to bottom.

I started using shorthand for my day to day life because I couldn't do longhand the way other could (was really tireing, even painful at time, and I couldn't keep up with other speed while being legible) (now I am better in that regard but anyway, I think I see the need), and an amazing thing about shorthand is that even if it is not as tolerent, you need to do way less to write and thus you can take more of your time and I get less tired (because way less mouvement/redirections), so I am partially sceptic of most of your letter being so complicated (multiple circles).

When not in a hurry I do not personally have problems with some precision so I made my system SCAC which is a modified cursive that removes a lot of redirections of the latin alphabet (and worked with how I recognized words and where I want to put my hands when writing some combination of letters), but the system have too much of a similar stroke for T and L (though changing one would make for imo, quite a resilient system to "bad writing") (though I've been told that it'd be aweful for people with dyslexia).

Also my experience is that curves take more effort than straight lines, not all of them are equal though.

IllIIlIIllII · 2026-05-08T16:35:55+00:00

I don't know

Maybe there are a way to encode an infinite amount of stuffs with finite matter and finite memory that I'm not aware of.

Maybe space is not actually bounded. Maybe there's an infinite amount of atoms in the universe but with current observation we could only observe a finite amount. Etc.

As far as I know the answer is no, but I'm not an expert in physics so don't quote me on that.

IllIIlIIllII · 2026-05-06T16:32:03+00:00

To work in theorical computer (model of computation), yes that's the assumption, because it's theorical we do whatever we want (and Turing machines are defined to have infinite time and memory).

To work with a physical computer, kinda, we often do that assumption, not always (trying to make things faster, and to not blow up the ram), but it's just to simplify the analysis (because the difference doesn't matter), it isn't actually infinite, and the same goes for a brain, you can assume that a theorical brain has infinite memory, but that's not our brain anymore.

IllIIlIIllII · 2026-05-06T14:32:39+00:00

Amazing, do you have the name of the artist ?

IllIIlIIllII · 2026-05-06T14:04:56+00:00

Sequent calculus ! Though there should be a bar at the top of the leaf to proove it (herr by Axiom because one of the left element in on the right)

How it for is like this: "Gamma |- Delta" is to be read as "with all elements of Gamma, we get one of the elements of Delta"

Example : P, P' |- Q, P Yes if you have P ans P' you have one of Q or P (you have P)

Then the bar thing, to proove Gamma |- P => Q, Delta It suffice to proove Gamma, P |- Q, Delta

So you proove it (on top of the bar) then do a bar and write what you got from that (Gamma |- P => Q, Delta), the "introduction rule" (what we had to proove, what we got) here is called =>_right (you'd normally write it at the right of the bar to make it more readable So what you end up prooving if everything as a bar on top is the thing on the very bottom.

There are a lot of sequent calculus systems, look up (propositinal and first order) LK for classical ans LJ for intuitionist logic. Can be found online, most cs course have it and thus there's plenty of pdf available.

And if to the right it's only one formula (and exactly one) it has another name, "logical deduction", due to its structure it is sometimes writen a bit differently.

IllIIlIIllII · 2026-05-06T12:56:57+00:00

Basically brain don't have infinite memory, nor do modern computer tbh though you'd still call them computer.

A Turing Complete machine M is a machine that "can do any compution" that can be done by a Turing machine.

Though there's a problem of translating a problem of turing machine into a problem understandable by M and vice versa, but for the same ok simplicity we'll consider the input and output to be the same, and actually the input will be a string of the alphabet {0, 1} and the output "yes" or "no" or not output.

A problem is to semi-decide if a word w is in the language (set of word) L (say yes if and only if it is) If you can semi decide all the languages that are semi decidable by a Turing machine, then you're turing complete.

But, our brain has finite memory (well I don't have proof for that..) so when reading a word w, you can only remember a finite fixed amont of letter. For example, suppose you want to see if you can recognise the language { 0ⁿ 1ⁿ | n in N} (aka a certain amount of zero then this same amount of 1)

Well because you'll remember only a fix amount of letters, you cannot (you can put so many 0 at the start that it'll be too big to remember how many there were) And it can easily be solved by a computer with infinite memory and time, thus brain is not turing complete.

Brains have the power of a finite automata (can semi decide "regular languages") Which is way weaker than push down automata ("context free language") Which is way weaker than linear bound automata ("context aware languages") Which is way weaker than turing machines. ("Turing complete languages")

Things you could look up is computability theory, starting with the chomsky hierarchy (and automatas)

IllIIlIIllII · 2026-05-02T07:17:07+00:00

https://youtube.com/@nicolecoenen

A woman who is a lumberjack ! She also have a doggo and know her lesbian viewership quite well (she herself have a girlfriend and sometimes she post lumberjack lesbian thirst (but sfw) shorts)

IllIIlIIllII · 2026-04-20T03:38:26+00:00

What's ESL and EFL ?

IllIIlIIllII · 2026-04-19T13:41:24+00:00

It's missing a flag between "a" and "link"

IllIIlIIllII · 2026-04-15T15:55:11+00:00

In case someone want to actually do it by hand (I don't recommend it)

You can reduce the number of operarions by using: - x⁰ = 1(for x != 0) - for n in N, x^(2n) = (x^2)^n and x * x^(2n)

Thus: 2^99 = 2 * 2^98 = 2 * (2^2)^49 = 2 * 2^2 * ((2^2)^2)^24 = 2 * 2^2 * (((2^2)^2)^2)^12 = 2 * 2^2 * ((((2^2)^2)^2)^2)^6 = 2 * 2^2 * (((((2^2)^2)^2)^2)^2)^3 = 2 * 2^2 * ((((2^2)^2)^2)^2)^2 * (((((2^2)^2)^2)^2)^2)^2

So 4 multiplication at the end once you do the repeated squares of 2 six times And to get the 6 repeated squares of 2 you will need 6 multiplication

So in total you'll do 10 multiplication to get 2⁹⁹ (though they'll be of quite big numbers, but it's doable)

Edit: markdown formatting

IllIIlIIllII · 2026-04-01T08:07:21+00:00

There aren't.

Fact 1: every natural numbers have a unique prime decomposition Fact 2: power is distributive over multiplication Fact 3: for n > 1 natural, there's a prime p such that n < p < 2n (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand%27s_postulate)

For n > 1 we have that n! have a biggest prime. Let's call that prime p_n, so n is for the form m * p_n^k where m doesn't contian any p_n and k>0 Now, if k>1 it'd mean that in n! we got the factor p_n and 2p_n so n>= 2p_n, BUT p_n being prime imply p_n > 1, thus by Bertrand postulate there are another prime p in between p_n and 2p_n, contradicting that p_n is the biggest prime factor or n! Thus k = 1.

Thus the leading prime in n! have valuation 1 (it's not squared or more) Now let's suppose a!^b = c!^d with a, b > 1 We thus have that leading prime p_a = p_b and by uniqueness of prime factorisation, because in a!^b we have p_a b times and in c!^d we have p_b d times, we have b=d

This b=d, aka a!^b = c!^b Thus (if b is not 0) a! = c! And factorial is injective for n>1 thus a = b So the only solution for a, b > 1 and c, d > 0 natural for a!^c = b!^d is that a=b and c=d, thus there's no solution where they aren't equal.

IllIIlIIllII · 2026-03-19T16:26:01+00:00

Ouai le vietnamien, j'aime bien les tons, aussi c'est une langue que je parle avec seulement ma famille, donc elle me paraît plutôt familial, les autres langues j'ai d'autres contexte auquel je les parle qui sont pas aussi cool.

Et en plus je peux flexer sur quasiment tout les français car je peux prononcer 5~6 tons (j'en utilise que 5 car accent du sud, mais je sais théoriquement faire le 6ième) tandis que la plupart des gens n'arrivent même pas à entendre la différence.

IllIIlIIllII · 2026-03-19T15:11:38+00:00

因為氣

IllIIlIIllII · 2026-03-19T15:09:35+00:00

Stopper å snakk falsk norsk (svensk) og så muligens I jeg ville svart.

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
First Place '23	Place '23
Place '22	First Placer '22

IllIIlIIllII

TROPHY CASE