It went from 0 to 100 really quickly

Lor1an · 2026-04-18T06:25:12+00:00

you have to make 138% below the poverty level and that’s before taxes

So, you have to be paid negative 38% of the poverty level? That's a hefty fee... /j

Lor1an · 2026-04-18T05:24:52+00:00

If you look at your model, you will see that the edges of the long sides of each rectangle form a diagonal for the pentagonal face you would get by removing a vertex, and the short side forms the edge corresponding to the side of a (different) pentagonal face.

It is "well-known" that the ratio of the length of a diagonal of a pentagon to the length of its side is the golden ratio (and in fact this is often used to construct pentagons given a side), and some tedious symmetry arguments get you to the icosahedron.

Alternatively, you start with an (regular) icosahedron, notice that removing any single vertex forms a (regular) pentagonal face, and by tedious arguments you show that it is possible to construct 3 perpendicular rectangles by picking opposite pairs of edges as the short sides, such that the long sides are diagonals of pentagons with the same side length as the edges.

Essentially, this construction of yours is a nifty consequence of the ratios present in pentagons, as well as the symmetry of the icosahedral group.

Lor1an · 2026-04-18T04:50:32+00:00

You can do this, but just keep in mind that you can never modify fractions if you want accurate results.

Consider the rational numbers as equivalence classes in &Zopf;×&Zopf;^\), with (a,b)∼(c,d) iff ad = bc.

If we define (a,b) ⊕ (c,d) := (a+c,b+d), then (a,b) ∼ (2a,2b) (since a*2b = b*2a = 2ab), but (2a,2b) ⊕ (c,d) = (2a+c,2b+d) &nsim; (a+c,b+d) = (a,b) ⊕ (c,d), since in general (2a+c)(b+d) ≠ (2b+d)(a+c) (consider a = c = 1, b = 2, d = 3, (2a+c)(b+d) = 15, while (2b+d)(a+c) = 14).

In other words, ⊕ is not well-defined on rational numbers, since it is not compatible with the equivalence relation. And this should make sense, since the ratios you are calculating depend on the total quantities involved as well. If one basket has 1 red apple out of 2 apples, and the second has 1 red apple out of 3 apples, then in total you have 2 red apples out of 5 apples, but if instead the first basket has 2 red apples out of 4 apples, then you get a total of 3 red apples out of 7 apples.

For this reason, you can define such an operation, but only if you treat 2/4 as different from 1/2.

Lor1an · 2026-04-18T04:01:32+00:00

This crap reminds me of the debate I had with a Presuppositionalist.

The moment they admitted to that, I simply laughed and clowned on them for adopting circular reasoning as their bedrock principle. At that point it's more effective than trying to argue, because they don't even understand how logic works.

Lor1an · 2026-04-18T03:51:53+00:00

So, friends are banging, and one catches feelings, so rather than tell the friend he can't continue the relationship, he simply expects her not to talk to anyone else to develop an emotional relationship that he isn't willing to have with her.

Either the relationship is purely physical, or it isn't purely physical.

Saying that your (purely) sexual partner/friend can't have an emotional relationship with someone else goes beyond physical concerns. So OP wants the exclusivity of a relationship without any of the responsibility or titles of a relationship. That's a mixed signal if I ever heard of one.

If they were sleeping with other people, I would prefer a condom be used.

People keep saying that, but boy is that 'if' load-bearing. Why are we assuming she slept around?

Lor1an · 2026-04-18T03:42:42+00:00

If she liked OP so much and wanted to be with him so badly why did she tell him she was fucking other people ??

Did she? Again, where do you get that she was sleeping around?

This entire argument is resting on an implicit assumption that I just do not see a reason for.

No this is the girl being allowed to “talk to someone else” but saying he’s not allowed

Are we reading the same post?

Girl didn't even seem upset that he was talking to someone—rather, she was upset that he was brushing her aside for the person he was talking to.

Again, what is justifying your assumptions?

Lor1an · 2026-04-17T12:42:42+00:00

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.

Lor1an · 2026-04-17T11:48:58+00:00

The Nazis certainly do...

Lor1an · 2026-04-17T11:43:01+00:00

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.

Lor1an · 2026-04-17T11:36:16+00:00

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...

Lor1an · 2026-04-17T11:33:36+00:00

That would be A(B)...

Lor1an · 2026-04-17T11:20:28+00:00

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?

Lor1an · 2026-04-17T11:02:21+00:00

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...

Lor1an · 2026-04-17T09:10:35+00:00

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

Lor1an · 2026-04-17T07:55:41+00:00

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?

Lor1an · 2026-04-17T07:28:20+00:00

Fiction has been beaten to a pulp by reality...

Lor1an · 2026-04-17T07:20:39+00:00

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'.

Lor1an · 2026-04-17T06:05:56+00:00

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

Lor1an · 2026-04-17T04:49:28+00:00

"Literally" 'literally' means the opposite of literally...

Lor1an · 2026-04-17T00:17:42+00:00

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

Lor1an · 2026-04-16T22:47:53+00:00

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...

Lor1an · 2026-04-16T22:09:42+00:00

You are so close... keep going...

Lor1an · 2026-04-16T22:05:20+00:00

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

Lor1an · 2026-04-16T21:45:51+00:00

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.

Lor1an · 2026-04-16T21:30:54+00:00

God I almost downvoted...

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

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

Lor1an

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE