all 33 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 25 points 4 months ago (16 children)

When people give me a range from 1 to X I always pick 1 to poop on the party

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 4 months ago (12 children)

    When I'm watching TV with friends I like to leave the volume at 9, 11, 17... numbers like that, and then act like they are the crazy ones if they get annoyed

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 4 months ago (8 children)

    Am I the only one that doesn't care what the volumes at? if I can hear it and it isn't too loud idc if its even, odd or ending in 5/0

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    I don't even look at the number, I just listen

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Wow, look at this showoff using their ears to listen! I bet you don't even need subtitles to hear better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    I only care if I can hear and I consider myself fairly normal. In the car, 9 is usually where I can hear my podcasts over the road noise. 8 and I miss words. 10, and it eventually gets unpleasant. On the TV, I don't know: I run all the audio through a tuner and it's hard to see the numbers from the couch. Besides, I think it measures in dB, which I don't understand. For most shows, I think it's somewhere in the -30s.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    I used to be like that, but my current setup changes the volume by a lot with only one number. 7 ish if my gf is asleep, 10 otherwise. 12+ if there's a lot of noise elsewhere. Was annoying at first, but now I don't care, so I guess the curse has finally been lifted

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 8 points 4 months ago (7 children)

    well real numbers are uncountable, but the set of numbers you can think of and describe is still countable

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    Is it? I could be convinced but I'm going to need a proof before I believe that

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    You have the explanation, but more precisely: the set of definable real numbers is countable, because a mathematical definition can be encoded as a finite sequence of mathematical symbols (of which thereare only finitely many), and so there are only countably many definitions.

    Hence most real numbers are undefinable.

    By the way, there is a simple proof that all natural numbers are definable: if not, then there is a smallest undefinable number. But "the smallest undefinable natural number" would then be a definition of that number :)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    I thought that all self referencing proofs are trouble since Russell's paradox

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    I hoped someone would make that connection! This one is actually sound but there is a closely related limitative result, the undefinability of truth (attributed to tarski) which uses a "liar sentence" like the "liar set" of Russell's paradox: "this sentence is not true". Of course, liar sentence have been known since ancient times, but it was only in the 20th century when we could give them a mathematical interpretation, rather than a purely logical one.

    This means that there is no mathematical definition of what is true about the natural numbers, but there are still definitions of other things, and we can still quantify over those definitions.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago

    The school house rock cd rom did not cover this topic in funky number land

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    My favorite number is 43758.5453 I picked it at random.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    It's technically infinite, but the set of numbers we can express (in a reasonable timeframe), while large, is finite.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    Anyone else on team Ο†

  • source