all 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Doesn't entire fuck imply it's finite?

And even if it's not a finite set, there is nothing that says if it's countably or uncountably infinite.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    I just realised it could also mean the entirety of a set with an infinite cardinality.

    But we don't have enough evidence to conclude the cardinality of fuckery. And if the cardinality is not the same, there can't be a bijection and therefore also no isomorphism between two groups.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    An "entire" fiction is analytic at all points on the complex plane, so by Liouville's boundedness theorem, it is either constant or unbounded. I think we can agree that this fuck function isn't constant, so it must be unbounded. It is also continuous, thus infinite.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Fraction, negatives and an imaginary component don't imply the existence of irrational numbers, which are a required part of complex numbers as we know them.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    Hmm. I think we might be able to get there by combining a fucking jerk with a unit circle jerk. This should result in pi fucking jerks. Now just divide by jerk and we have an irrational amount of fucks.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Most fucks are some kind frictional, not fractional.

    Some uncle knows about negative fuck ;c

    Yet most imaginary fucks are positive.

  • source
  • 61 comments in c/science_memes@mander.xyz view that post
    [–] 58 points 1 year ago

    This is useful for those trying to convey more precisely the amount of fucks they give.

  • source
  • [–] 40 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 31 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Nice try but no proof yet if the fuckery field is irrational.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago*

    Nah, just look at the folks over in HR. Irrational fucks to a person. Though I suppose all that means is that there are some irrational elements in the set, not necessarily that it's isomorphic to the field of complex numbers. So can we diagonalize fuckery somehow...?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    So what’s their opinion on the holy fuck?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    There are definitely positive and negative fucks

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    There being absolute fucks doesn't imply positive and negative fucks though.

    It implies we've set a point to measure against which we call zero fucks.

    Perhaps there's an absolute zero fucks which can never be reached.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago

    ∅ = how many i have left to give.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    What in the fucking fuck?! is a good one, too. Has some real what in tarnation? energy to it.

    I also learned that FUCKING GOD!! is my go-to expletive when I spilled some icecream and my daughter (3 at the time) started yelling it in the car.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    Would plain old "What the Fuck" imply a null set?

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    No prove of irrational fucks yet tho

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Ok, everyone but me seems to get it, so I'll ask. I get everything but the last bit. What does "isomorphic with the complex field" mean? I think I know what isomorphic means from some dabbling I've done in category theory.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    In means you can map every element bijectively to one from the complex field AND addition and multiplication can be performed in either field without leading to contractions, i.e. a+b=c <=> f(a)+f(b)=f(a+b)=f(c) and equivalent for multiplication. This is the part that the meme fails to consider, because nowhere is addition or multiplication for this novel field defined.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I'll give this some attention when time permits because this does not make things clearer, lol.

    I'll start with what a field is and a complex field 🤞

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    ELI5: it means that for every number there's a matching fuck and vice versa.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Not only for any number of fucks there is a corresponding complex number, but the basic operations (+, -, x, /) work in the same way for fucks and complex numbers

    Overall, if two things are isomorphic you can consider them «  the same »

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    I fucking love this

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Which implies the existence of a non god affected fucks.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    fan-fucking-tastic

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Okay but is the fuck a monoid in the category of endofunctors ?

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Euler's fuck formula.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    The fuck transcends our ability to capture its essence

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Fucks can also have a social hierarchy, as evidenced by the phrase:

    "I don't give a single solitary fuck"

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    What the uncomputable fuck

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    fucking fucks implies fucks are procreating.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago*

    I actually tend to treat fucks like the constant C in calculus. Ideally it should cancel out entirely and you should give the minimal amount of fucks in all of your final answers.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    I see this comment section is full of various operations defined on fuckery. I don't think they form a field or even a ringi

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    I prefer to solve the Hodge conjecture

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The real question is - is fuck Turing-complete?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    It's actually a beautiful language for arguing about computability because of how similar it is to a theoretical turning machine in that it possesses a read/write head that can move left and right on an infinite band. It's also incredibly simple to simulate using any other language of choice, including assembly and heck, even raw logic gates.

    In this essay I will explain why Brainfuck should be the first language taught to computer science majors.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    I’ve always loved ladies who are smarter / better educated than me.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    So what's fuck fuckity fuck fuck fuck?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    If you'd like to hear about the versatility of the word 'fuck' click and enjoy some Wildhearts at the same time :)

    https://youtu.be/3ZLFlzDazvA

    You may want to skip the last minute...on the original cd it was waaay longer!

  • source