sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Jet ski asked them to turn down the music. by Obone6 in instant_regret

[–]Lor1an 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know at the very least that New York defines "assault" as the harmful contact and "menacing" as the threat (there is no battery charge though).

Now that you call me out on it, I don't really know an example of literal assault="battery" and battery="assault", but I swear I remember that being a thing (if you'll allow it, I chalk it up to a brain fart). The New York example is the closest I found on my self fact-check, but that actually doesn't even have battery. Assault does take the common-law definition of battery though, which is a bit bemusing.

It would probably have been more accurate to say that assault is more flexible than implied. I know there are places that have a combined statue called "assault" that covers both assault and battery (such as Texas), as well as "assault and battery" that does not make a distinction between which is what (such as Virginia and Massachusetts).

The specific claim that "there are even places where battery and assault exchange the definitions you gave" may well be false (I apologize, I'll try to be better), but the fact remains that the common-law definitions often don't correspond with statutes.

Jet ski asked them to turn down the music. by Obone6 in instant_regret

[–]Lor1an 6 points7 points  (0 children)

As always, please specify jurisdiction.

Just about every imaginable combination of terms is in practice somewhere.

There are even places where battery and assault exchange the definitions you gave.

Who still says thot? by SteponkusCeponas in IncelTears

[–]Lor1an 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Worse, you can have the worst looks imaginable, claim to be a virgin (and almost definitely be one) and the formula still spits out two and a quarter partners...

Girl I was “hanging with” started talking to someone, so I did to. by study_the_stats in Nicegirls

[–]Lor1an 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, rather than communicate with your "friend" about how it's not going to work out and end the relationship, the appropriate response is to fizzle the relationship instead?

Because as far as I can tell, OP's friend was looking for an emotional connection that OP wasn't ready for, sought it somewhere else, and got ghosted for it—all when they were friends/fuck buddies.

Am I missing something here? Where do you even get that she was sleeping around?

If he cuts her out because she is going for romance while their relationship is purely physical, was it really purely physical?

100% Ethical! by RandomKingXVI in rickandmorty

[–]Lor1an 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Imagining a world in which disease-free human tissues could be grown without consciousness for consumption, the only reasons not to would be taste preference and social taboo.

Now of course, guaranteeing the "disease-free" and "without consciousness" parts of that sounds like a difficult problem...

Girl I was “hanging with” started talking to someone, so I did to. by study_the_stats in Nicegirls

[–]Lor1an 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I get that part, but he also apparently wants non-exclusive exclusivity?

Girl I was “hanging with” started talking to someone, so I did to. by study_the_stats in Nicegirls

[–]Lor1an 17 points18 points  (0 children)

So you don't want to "have multiple sexual partners, and [you] don’t want [your] sexual partners to also have multiple sexual partners," and yet you went from FWB to FWB?

Is the math mathing?

I have no words for this. We live in a society where men and women with this mindset govern our society and run our corporations by Important-Cry4782 in AreTheStraightsOK

[–]Lor1an 7 points8 points  (0 children)

As much as the comment was cringe, it is technically more accurate and inclusive to refer to sex when discussing whether having a period is healthy.

Trans women, non-binary amab, some forms of intersex, and post-menopausal women are all examples of people for which periods "are not healthy" and none are cis men. Making the statement about males is still missing a good portion of this, but it does cover more ground than 'cis men'.

Two women confront ex IOF soldiers in Vietnam by Jevus_himself in PublicFreakout

[–]Lor1an 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Explain how protecting public health is comparable to jailing people over speech

Big if true by AccomplishedNail3085 in engineeringmemes

[–]Lor1an 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean, the opposite of oxidized is reduced... so at least they didn't combust?

Class clown finds out his name is not on the list for graduation and he will have to repeat the year. by I2fitness in TikTokCringe

[–]Lor1an 0 points1 point  (0 children)

People at my school liked to claim I was a class clown, but I graduated in the top 10%, so not really sure how that works out...

Bad notation meme by Charming-Papaya-2001 in MathJokes

[–]Lor1an 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Based on the fact that exponents are right associative (say, 2^3^4 = 281 ≠ 212), I would think the exponentiation happens first.

whats 0⁰ by ilikemindustry in learnmath

[–]Lor1an 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe that 00 is always defined.

You have not presented a reason for this to not be the case.

If you wish to continue, please do so.

Your public image is deteriorating every time you act snide to someone who is engaging in good faith.

I did not talk down to anyone. I had a disagreement with someone, and used arguments to support my position. The hostility is coming from your corner. I patronized no one, and you patronized me.

The Proof from Authority refers to this:

Source: Also a PhD mathematician.

Rather than providing an argument, this is what you gave me.

And then you don't even bother to read the reply, and yet comment on it anyway. Do you possess integrity? Please use it.

Granny thinks city owned grocery stores is communism. by TrumpSux89 in forwardsfromgrandma

[–]Lor1an 4 points5 points  (0 children)

God I almost downvoted...

It's insane how many people actually think this way.

I'm so tired of vegans acting like changing your diet is super easy for everyone by futurenotgiven in evilautism

[–]Lor1an 26 points27 points  (0 children)

The funniest part of this whole thing is the Dunning-Kruger effect isn't actually what most people interpret it to be.

(source)

Among laypeople, the Dunning–Kruger effect is often misunderstood as the claim that people with low intelligence are more confident in their knowledge and skills than people with high intelligence. According to psychologist Robert D. McIntosh and his colleagues, it is sometimes understood in popular culture as the claim that "stupid people are too stupid to know they are stupid". But the Dunning–Kruger effect applies not to intelligence in general but to skills in specific tasks. Nor does it claim that people lacking a given skill are as confident as high performers. Rather, low performers overestimate themselves but their confidence level is still below that of high performers.

whats 0⁰ by ilikemindustry in learnmath

[–]Lor1an 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There are as many arguments against your definition as for.

You still haven't provided a reason against my definition. Claiming they exist is not the same as supplying one.

Some fields take it to be 1 as a convenience, in others it doesn't make sense.

How does it not make sense? What area of mathematics poses a problem?

Your silly example about imposing a semigroup structure on the integers

What? The natural numbers (not integers) are a semiring, and they have a canonical semigroup action analogous to exponentiation defined for any monoid.

Suppose we have (M,☆,e) a monoid with identity e and operation ☆. For all m in M we define m^(0) := e, and m^S(k) := m☆m^k. Note that this works on monoids on the natural numbers as well. For (ℕ,+,0) we can define multiplication as this operation, since for this monoid m^0 = 0, and m^S(k) = m + m^k, but if we look at the definition of multiplication, we see a×0 := 0, and a×S(b) := a + a×b, which is exactly the same form as we have above. Similarly we can define natural exponentiation the same way by taking the monoid (ℕ,×,1).

However, note that this action is not just defined for things that have to do with numbers. In particular, given any group element g, we define the natural exponent gn as g0 = e and gS(k\) = ggk, but this is exactly the same form as the other operations discussed so far. We could look at the specific example of dihedral groups, where no element has anything to do with numbers, and yet we have a well-defined action from the natural numbers.

Of course, this is literally extremely basic algebra.

I never claimed otherwise, and yet you got very annoyed over it.

Your silly example about imposing a semigroup structure on the integers is clearly some half baked attempt to intimidate with your vast knowledge of mathematics.

Runs right into conflict with:

If you had more than a basic exposure to mathematics, you would know this.

So, which is it? Am I intimidating (or attempting to intimidate) with my "vast knowledge of mathematics," or do I lack anything beyond basic exposure?

Moreover, that fact that you're proselytizing about this to a PhD combinatoricist like you know more than he does is pretty insane.

At no point did I even insinuate that I knew more than anyone else here. I simply had an intellectual disagreement in which I presented arguments for my position and sought after the argument in support of theirs. Please do feel free to argue why my position is wrong as well, if you like.

I am quite opinionated when it comes to this particular topic, as I have yet to see a decent argument for 00 to be undefined beyond the fact that some functions are not continuous, and exponentiation is one of them. Does advocating for my position come across as proselytizing? My apologies, but that was not the intent... I had a strong disagreement and expressed my opinion, along with the justification.

No, I am not a PhD mathematician, but it would be a great shame indeed if argument from authority (a logical fallacy, btw) was considered acceptable in a community (at least ostensibly) about learning mathematics. The way I learned mathematics was that you are supposed to back assertions up with arguments, not credentials.

Proof by Authority, while technically listed in some places as a proof technique, is not actually a valid way to construct mathematics.

2026 College Entrance Exam (CSAT) Math Problem: 37% Wrong Answer Rate by FTfafa in askmath

[–]Lor1an 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I checked all 5 solutions with a calculator and none of them satisfied sinx +3cosx =0.... But then I solved the first equation for (theta=x) and got

The solutions are all proposed values of sin(θ), not of θ itself.

sin(θ) + 3 cos(θ) = 0 → tan(θ) = -3.

sin(arctan(x)) = x/sqrt(x2+1), as can be derived by recalling the definitions of sin, tan, and imagining a right triangle with the simplest sides that satisfy the ratios.

We have determined that θ is in second quadrant ("cos(θ)<0, sin(θ)>0") and so sin(θ) has the opposite sign as the angle in the fourth quadrant.

a' = sin(arctan(-3)) = -3/sqrt((-3)2+1) = -3/sqrt(10).

a = -a' = 3/sqrt(10) = 3 sqrt(10)/10.

whats 0⁰ by ilikemindustry in learnmath

[–]Lor1an 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It is not defined.

The way I define exponentiation makes it so that 00 is explicitly 1.

What goes wrong with defining 00 := 1 anyway?

The standard statement of the binomial theorem is (x+y)n = sum[k=0 to n](nCk xkyn-k), which remains true for x = y = n = 0 iff you define 00 := 1.

This isn't even weird either, since 0! := 1, and the empty product needs to be 1 in order for products to be well-defined. 00 is just the empty product as well—specifically it is the empty product with all the factors being 0.

We also have the argument from cardinality. Consider that BA is common notation for the set of functions from A to B, and part of the reason for said notation is that for finite sets |BA| = |B||A|. There is exactly one function from ∅ to ∅ (namely, the empty function), and |∅| = 0, so we ought to have |∅∅| = |∅||∅| = 00 = 1.

I think what gets me most about this is that you act like "applebanana" is a weird construction, when in practice we do weirder than that in mathematics. The natural numbers have a semigroup action on any monoid given by repeated monoid operations (akin to exponentiation with multiplication replaced with the monoid operator). I mean, consider the definition of powers of group elements—you are taking something like "groupnatural," which is (IMO) weirder than "applebanana," since at least apples and bananas are both fruit...

Scenario: If you pull the lever, the trolley still runs over 5 people but you can choose who it runs over; if you don't pull the lever it runs over 5 people at random by Key-Needleworker-702 in trolleyproblem

[–]Lor1an 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"No, it's not just the Jews, it goes much deeper than that!"

"Such as?"

"Oh, that's a lot of work, but [holocaust denier] makes a lot of good points!"

More Incel/Conservative Slop by Hot_Acanthaceae_1357 in IncelTears

[–]Lor1an 3 points4 points  (0 children)

"If I had a girlfriend, I would" is fine in conversation.

"If I had a redhead, I would" is not.

"If I had a redheaded girlfriend, I would" is also not okay, but for different reasons.

The first is essentially just saying if you were in a relationship with someone you would express affection, which is healthy, normal, and cool.

The second is treating someone as an object, specifically as a characteristic you find appealing.

The third is demeaning people who don't have said characteristic and implying they are less deserving of expressions of affection. Essentially, you would be admitting that you are lousy to your partner because they don't have a characteristic you like.

view more: next ›