even if that’s not how you can write it, one gets the same issue in yours subtracting infinity from both sides
even if that’s not how you can write it, one gets the same issue in yours subtracting infinity from both sides
it’s actually Vulcan
ah, but don’t forget to prove that the cardinality of [0,1] is that same as that of (0,1) on the way!
no, there aren’t enough integers to map onto the interval (0,1).
probably the most famous proof for this is Cantor’s diagonalisation argument. though as it usually shows how the cardinality of the naturals is small than this interval, you’ll also need to prove that the cardinality of the integers is the same as that of the naturals too (which is usually seen when you go about constructing the set of integers to begin with)
actually you can for each real number you can exhaustively map a uninque number from the interval (0,1) onto it. (there are many such examples, you can find one way by playing around with the function tanx)
this means these two sets are of the same size by the mathematical definition of cardinality :)
well yeah, there’s only so much sexy to go around. how else do you propose we save some for spiders?
j’imagine qu’on peut militer en faveur de la reconnaissance du concept, avec l’intention que ça change comment on conçoit nos politiques
I like my potatoes raw thank you very much
I’m a little confused. Don’t we want this to be as transparent as possible to limit conspiracies?
some injustices are structural
I think the worry is a WW3 with China
I’m sure you do :)
That being said, by choosing not to break gender norms, are you not helping reinforce what an idea of female is?
(OK, maybe I’m going round in circles here)
Anyway, you have a lovely day :)
but isn’t the difference in one case free gender expression, whereas the other is (e.g. for trans male to female): I think I’m a woman and to show this I’m going to specifically dress in the ‘stereotypically womanliest’ way possible?
or, more generally, people shouldn’t be using gender as the reason to dress and act the way they want to. else they’re affirming that a certain gender means a certain form of acting.
obviously this is an exaggeration. but since we’re playing the game.
ok, I’ll bite and role-play devil’s advocate. how do you respond to such a take?
hey, they have to get the smart from somewhere
well if the feminist movement is all about deconstructing gender and removing fixed ideas of gender, then surely the trans movement is reversing this by reinforcing stereotypes in how people dress etc. /s
right, except sometimes it’s easier to impose conditions on certain countries than others. for example the US was able to get the previous Indian administration to sign a treaty ceding partial control of their arsenal to them, on threat of sanctions (if I recall correctly). as much as the US might want to do something like that with China, it wouldn’t be anywhere near as easy to pull off.
this is just an example, I’m not attaching moral value to what occurred/occurs
while the last point is perhaps the main determinant theory behind why many older people are not being owing more right wing, I’m a little confused by your first two points.
especially the fact that people have greater access to knowledge and are forced to think more critically. if anything, with the advent of the internet, echo chambers have never been easier, preventing critical thinking. this leads to a growing of extreme positions which further reinforces such views due to tribalistic fallacies in our thinking and the need for these tribal identities to distinguish themselves.
technically yes, but the proof would usually show that this works by constructing the bijection of [0,1] and (0,1) and then you’d say the cardinalities are the same by the Schröder-Berstein theorem, because the proof of the latter is likely not something you want to demonstrate every day