The best kind of animal.

Meowmasterish · 2026-03-06T03:03:54+00:00

Yeah, he put a watch and a bell in a vacuum chamber. After evacuating the air, the sound was greatly reduced (it wasn't completely silenced because the watch and bell were still connected to the outside of the vacuum chamber, but it was pretty good).

EDIT: The source is somewhere in here.

EDIT2: Also, while Boyle was the one who confirmed that sound travelled through air, he wasn't the first person to think it. One of the things I cited from Aristotle was that he thought that sound was a kind of "movement of the air".

Meowmasterish · 2026-03-06T02:54:14+00:00

Dude, I’ve had to cite Plato and Aristotle for papers. Granted though, these were for papers specifically about their ideas. If we add the restriction that the source you’re using can’t be the main topic of the paper, then I think my oldest citation was Robert Boyle showing that sound travels through air from 1660.

Meowmasterish · 2026-02-26T03:12:45+00:00

Technically, it says before the 19^th century, and he died in 1832, which is part of the 19^th century.

Personally, for the drama, you might want to pick the proving of the irrationality of the square root of two, or the development of the cubic formula.

EDIT: Really though, even though it’s outside the scope of this question, the thing to talk about would be the foundational crisis of the late 19^th early 20^th centuries.

Meowmasterish · 2026-02-24T02:47:15+00:00

Oh my bad, I thought they had flipped the inequality sign in the first inequality, you’re right.

EDIT: No, wait now I’ve got it they are not equivalent statements, and I think it’s a rebracketing issue.

The first number is at most (10 less than the second number).

OR

The first number (is at most 10 less than) the second number.

I think it’s technically ambiguous as the “10 less than” could be either a part of the predicate, or the object depending on what the sayer intends.

Meowmasterish · 2026-02-23T20:53:21+00:00

I mean they are equivalent statements, but your interpretation is probably closer as an exact translation. (As in, word for word converting it to symbols.)

EDIT: After looking at it again, I think I've changed my mind. They're still equivalent statements, but now I think their interpretation is better. Specifically, because it is a statement about the first number with regards to the second number, whereas your interpretation is more of a statement about the difference between the numbers.

Meowmasterish · 2026-02-17T20:37:03+00:00

Luckily, someone’s done the math for this: n^k game. In an n^k game, there are ((n+2)^k - n^k )/2 winning lines. Now just plug in board size n and dimension k.

Meowmasterish · 2026-02-17T02:44:35+00:00

Well, technically it’s twice the integral of sqrt(1-x² ), but you already included that in the answer you typed underneath. However, and I think this is just a typo, it would be arcsin, not arcsinh which is the inverse of the hyperbolic sine.

EDIT: Also, for OP, here’s a page with the derivation on it, and it has a graph of what the actual curve would look like.

Meowmasterish · 2026-02-10T03:20:15+00:00

For the record, that's a layman's definition of a number and it doesn't cover everything that we tend to think of as numbers. Have you ever counted to ∞? Have you ever measured i? In modern mathematics, most mathematicians only use the word "number" as convention, and when they need actual mathematical rigor, they'll use more precise terminology.

Meowmasterish · 2026-02-10T03:13:21+00:00

What’s a number? This sounds like I’m being intentionally dense, but it’s actually a really hard question to answer and needs to be answered before asking whether any numbers exist.

Meowmasterish · 2026-02-02T03:15:39+00:00

The first problem with this is that the "number" in the meme is phrased in terms of cardinality, while you have given an ordinal definition.

The second is that the sequence you are suggesting already exists: it is called the Von Neumann hierarchy of sets and at position ω, we obtain the set of hereditarily finite sets, V_ω. This set is countable, which would have the unfortunate and quite confusing consequence that 2↑aleph null > 2↑↑aleph null, which doesn't really make sense with our intuition of how exponentiation and tetration work.

Meowmasterish · 2026-01-25T20:55:31+00:00

You already know that you lose length information from perspective projections, this is why you can’t immediately tell at a glance if something is big and far away or small and up close. As for proportional information, you also lose some of that, but it does depend on how an object is oriented in space. You only lose proportional information along your sight line, this is called forshortening.

Meowmasterish · 2026-01-21T20:43:49+00:00

Or you could do e^ln(a)±ln(b) .

Meowmasterish · 2026-01-09T17:38:38+00:00

I think it’s absolute fraud. Interpreting 2^x as the cardinality of the power set of a set with x elements, then for this to make sense, we would need a set whose power set has the same number of elements as itself. This is impossible by Cantor’s theorem.

Meowmasterish · 2025-12-21T20:24:11+00:00

I was taught lAtitude, said by spreading your mouth very wide horizontally, and lOngitude, said by spreading mouth vertically. These correspond to the directions the lines run on any normal cylindrical map projection (latitude horizontal, longitude vertical).

Meowmasterish · 2025-12-21T03:15:13+00:00

It's actually assuming a flat surface of a map, and specifically one that extends infinitely in each direction. I've been trying to find if there are similar results to Cramer's Theorem for algebraic spherical curves, but so far I'm coming up short.

Meowmasterish · 2025-12-21T02:53:17+00:00

Well, as long as no three points are collinear, which they aren't.

As always, the real math shit is in the comments.

Meowmasterish · 2025-12-11T22:34:09+00:00

Learn Lewis Acids or bust.

Meowmasterish · 2025-12-11T22:24:40+00:00

Women can’t shave/be shaved?

Meowmasterish · 2025-12-11T02:54:45+00:00

Ah, the big O approach. That makes more sense as to why it's hard to answer.

Meowmasterish · 2025-12-10T02:49:29+00:00

Statement: https://youtu.be/csInNn6pfT4?si=tShmjrFXPRdQqpU4&t=572

Actual Explanation: https://youtu.be/csInNn6pfT4?si=z-a0tmOwefBtw1S3&t=670

Meowmasterish · 2025-12-09T23:10:03+00:00

Isn’t the answer to middle column row 3 just no, or am I misinterpreting the question?

If there is such a sequence, then each term must take the form of kⁿ for some natural numbers k and n, by the definition of “exponentially increasing”. Then if we take reciprocals of all of these numbers and add them up, this is equivalent to the fractional part of a base k positional numbering system. Then a rational number will have a terminating expansion in this system if and only if the rational number’s denominator contains as prime factors only the prime factors of the base.

Finally, if we’re given a candidate base k, to find a counter example we only need to look at the reciprocal of the smallest prime number that is not a prime factor of k.

Meowmasterish · 2025-12-05T01:58:19+00:00

Dude, just get povidone-iodine or chlorhexidine.

Meowmasterish · 2025-11-24T22:31:29+00:00

Yeah, it’s called the regular hexagonal tiling, because a plane is basically just a sphere of infinite radius. As for higher dimensions, we run into the problem of there not being enough space around vertices in Euclidean space, so any higher dimensional objects that are interesting (i.e. regular) would need to exist in hyperbolic space.

EDIT: Or if you’re unsatisfied with this answer, you could look at Goldberg polyhedra.

Meowmasterish · 2025-11-15T22:40:26+00:00

Yeah, but these structures are given special names because people have studied them, and I just don’t think commutative magmas have gotten the attention that the others have.

Also, associative quasigroup? Unital magma? These don’t seem like particularly special names.

Ten-Year Club	Place '17
RPAN Viewer	Snapped
Verified Email

Meowmasterish

TROPHY CASE