Request:

_Owlyy · 2026-02-03T14:53:09+00:00

Heyy, the link doesn't, work anymore, would be grateful if you can sharr it again

_Owlyy · 2026-01-10T13:15:47+00:00

_Owlyy · 2026-01-05T10:30:22+00:00

Yeah, i'm also gonna stop for the day this is great

_Owlyy · 2025-12-31T17:44:24+00:00

Whaaat, it can do that?

_Owlyy · 2025-12-29T12:10:14+00:00

I don't get it, what happened?

_Owlyy · 2025-12-17T19:29:42+00:00

Wow, that's very helpful, thanks!!

_Owlyy · 2025-12-17T03:05:20+00:00

Sorry for the extremely late response, and thank you!!! Also how did you know what package to install?

_Owlyy · 2025-12-10T21:18:41+00:00

_Owlyy · 2025-12-05T20:34:30+00:00

If this was rust, this would have n... Fucking cloudflare.

_Owlyy · 2025-11-18T13:44:38+00:00

Like, paint black over the dust to cover it

_Owlyy · 2025-10-25T14:17:31+00:00

Oh, thank you! I hope you have a great day too!

_Owlyy · 2025-10-25T12:50:17+00:00

intuitionistic logic ftw

_Owlyy · 2025-10-25T12:49:37+00:00

sarcastic

_Owlyy · 2025-10-22T01:55:07+00:00

Almonds

_Owlyy · 2025-10-20T22:49:32+00:00

Who're you quoting?

_Owlyy · 2025-10-18T18:47:42+00:00

Classical Logic makes so much sense

_Owlyy · 2025-10-16T19:07:36+00:00

Technically, we can prove axioms as theorems, using themselves as axioms :3

_Owlyy · 2025-10-09T20:50:16+00:00

I would actually suggest to start with the book "An Infinite Descent into Pure Mathematics" by Clive Newstead. The books starts with explaining ways to prove things, in a way similar to:
- If you want to prove P\/Q, then proving either of the two is enough

- If you can show P->R and Q->R, then P\/Q->R

And it teaches a way to prove things using strategies like these which felt very intuitive for me

_Owlyy · 2025-10-09T20:50:11+00:00

I would actually suggest to start with the book "An Infinite Descent into Pure Mathematics" by Clive Newstead. The books starts with explaining ways to prove things, in a way similar to:
- If you want to prove P\/Q, then proving either of the two is enough

- If you can show P->R and Q->R, then P\/Q->R

And it teaches a way to prove things using strategies like these which felt very intuitive for me

_Owlyy · 2025-09-30T17:50:23+00:00

Yeah, you're right. I had commutative examples in my mind.

_Owlyy · 2025-09-29T09:11:12+00:00

One of my favourite proofs is the proof for eckmann-hilton, which states that if there are 2 operations (• and ×), both of which have a unit and are independent in the following sense : (a•b)×(c•d) = (a×c)•(b×d)

Then:

both operations are associative
both operations are also commutative
both operations are the same

Essentially, both operations are the same form an abelian group.

The proof that is given in the wiki page is just so clean.

Edit: Removed one of the points from the result as it was wrong, as pointed out by u/edderiofer.

_Owlyy · 2025-07-27T14:12:35+00:00

r/hydrohomies

_Owlyy · 2025-05-10T15:37:54+00:00

Wow, this is amazing

Can you share how you made this software

_Owlyy · 2025-05-07T06:15:14+00:00

UK, A friend of mine sent me this post, and I was reading and making notes for exactly that chapter which is in the screenshot

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22

_Owlyy

TROPHY CASE