There are also only two different animals: elephants and non-elephants.
Anything unrelated to elephants is irrelephant.
This comment needs way more approval
120 is a lot.
I think you are mistaken actually the different types of animal are frogs and not frogs
There are bullfrogs and elephant bulls, so we can conclude that {🐸}∩{🐘}⊂{🐂}
Hmm perhaps some kind of sliding scale is in order
I think you actually want {🐸}∪{🐘}⊂{🐂} because ∪ is union and ∩ is intersection. There are no frogs that are also elephants so the set would be empty and thus couldn’t contain any bulls. 😔
Aktshually, the empty set is a subset of any other set 🤓
But also, the fact that frogs and elephants are disjunct is conjecture at this point
Frogness is a spectrum
That’s a very frogressive thing to say.
Your both wrong there are crabs and then there are crabs 🦀🦀🦀🦀
we are crab 🦀
🦀🦀🦀🦀🦀🦀🦀🦀 JAGEX SERVERS ARE POWERLESS AGAINST AUTH DELAY 🦀🦀🦀🦀🦀🦀🦀🦀🦀🦀
Crabbbbb people craaaabbb peopleeee
Crabs and will eventually evolve into crab.
deleted by creator
Doesn’t that happen just once, when tadpolemaxxing has been achieved ?
Crabs and not yet crabs.
Are these elephants in the room right now?
As a non-elephant in the room I feel overlooked
The elephants exist in a state of being in the room and not being in the room
You gotta address the elephant in the room for it to exist
You either are crabs or have crabs
Holy crab
There are elephants, non-elephants, and undetermined elephants.
This comment was made by the intuitionistic and/or fuzzy logic gang.
Technically the existance of non-binaries also makes the binaries no longer binaries (due to increased optionality), so it would be fair to say everyone is non-binary
Good point!
And when everyone is non-binary, no one is 😔
That’s not how that works. If there isn’t a binary (because there isn’t just 2 options) then this would be a non-binary system and so everyone would be non-binary.
Was looking for this comment. Thank you.
What up my hexadecimals
That’s just like Hangul, but for computer numbers.
Once you’re quite good at reading hexadecimals, you no longer need to look up binary, though you still need decimal-hexadecimal conversion, which is slower.
There are only 2 numbers
- 0/1
- all the other numbers
All the other numbers can be written wit 0/1
Counterpoint: Floating-point inaccuracies.
Floating point is a consequence of physical computerr being finite not using binary.
Counter-counter-counterpoint: pi in base-pi can be written in one digit
In that case decimal is flawed too, 0.6667 or any such approxination doesnt exactly equal 2/3. It technically happens in any number system where you are dividing by a prime that isnt part of either the base or the number being divided
Counterpoint 1:
0.6̇(Unicode does not support numbers with overdots correctly)Counterpoint 2:
2/3It won’t work with irrational numbers, or transcendental numbers even if you allow things like √2.
But honestly I have no idea what the point of this conversation even is
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Counter-counterpoint:
Display the exact value of pi with 64 digits in any base N number system.
All numbers can be written with |
You joke but in astronomy there are only three elements. Hydrogen, helium, and metal. Which is just every other element together in one group.
1 is the loneliest
Define “all the other numbers”. Do we include only natural numbers? Or all instegers? Or even rational numbers? Do we include imaginary numbers? How about complex numbers? Orbetter go for quaternions?
Define "all the other numbers
If its a number and it isn’t exactly 0 or 1.
You still haven’t defined number part
Feel like there’s a Set Theory issue with this but I barely understand what little I can remember about it.
Does the gender of all non-self-containing genders contain itself? This is the fundamental question of gender theory.
No, it’s only Russell’s question.
A bit can have two states:
trueorfalse. Additionally, the bit can be disabled altogether (null).
The two genders: Binary and Non-binary.
There are non-binary people who still believe genders can suit others, and even be played with as forms of role play …and there are also examples of null states, such as nullos and asexuals…
…so non-binary doesn’t necessarily make a new binary if they still believe gender is fine for others, or as a role play.
A better way to think about it might be as a gender spectrum or quadratic continuum of varied characteristics and overlapping body forms and sexual preferences/behaviour.
…queer.
Asexuality isn’t a gender. We’re just not attracted to people of any gender. Our gender identity is separate.
To be fair, it calls then categories, not genders
Whatever, just wash your hands.
And don’t talk to me. I’d rather be surrounded by twelve “women” (i.e. trans men) in the men’s room (or even just women) than one cis guy who insists on having a conversation with me.
I’m not there to make friends.
Never understood this. Standing at a urinal and someone walks up and starts talking to me, like no dude shut up
I’ve had people doing it when I’m in the stall next to them. Leave me alone with my thoughts while I’m shitting, please.
But where else am I going to get the winning lotto numbers?
Have you considered your local tarot card reader?
How do you know they’re not in the toilet stall next to yours?
This has literally never happened to me, where do you guys live lol
What if I’m naan binary (preferably garlic)?
when peshwari exists?
I’m peshwari-curious.
No…Keema is the right choice
If there already exists “a binary” then that says there are 2 states. “Non-binary” only means there are not-two-states. This could be unary (there is one kind of thing), trinary (there are now 3 things, the old 2 and new, secret 3rd thing), or really any n-ary set of n distinctly numbered things, so long as there aren’t only exactly 2 of them.
“Non-binary” only means there are not-two-states.
The state of having two states and the state of not-having-two-states is itself a two-state solution.
Unfortunately, once you rule out non-binary as a third state, you collapse back into the original binary state. Thus, non-binary exists as a quantum superposition between states, as we fluctuate between whether or not being non-binary is politically correct.
But can a two-state solution really work?
Going to the UN to propose my Quantum Superposition Solution to Violence in the Middle East.
I don’t think anyone will agree to dropping a massive Schrodinger box over the whole region
We put a large box over the middle east and left a vial of radioactive material in there.
Now either Israel ignored it and freaked out about the box like everyone else or they immediately used it to make bombs and eradicate their neighbors out of view.
Schrodinger’s Palestine.
Touché! Maybe we need a UN state shoved in beside the west bank to help keep an eye on things?
Yes and no.
But nobody is in the state of having two states, though. People range from being in one state to “it’s complicated”, but how would you be in exactly two states?
You wouldn’t, at least not while being observed.
So turn off the lights and anything can happen?
No, turn the light off and everything happens
I want to upvote the OP for presenting an interesting discussion but downvote them for being wrong. This presents a case for a non-binary voting option.
A singular like button would still only express one portion of my sentiment. A third option could be many things, none are sufficient: a none or 0 or neutral option is effectively not voting, a sideways arrow or maybe state, or mixed state would express indecision or indeterminism rather than mixed feelings.
Therefore, I propose that a second positive-negative axis is required. The addition of these “sideways” arrows allow expressing 2 kinds of sentiment: towards the post content, and towards the poster themselves. I will not specify whether left or right is positive nor will i clarify which axis (x or y) corresponds to which kind of sentiment. I’m sure this undefined behavior will cause no problems.
Here is your composite vote in the new system: ↖️
The choice between a traditional up-down vote and a new non-up-down vote must have been a tough one.
I’m considering identifying as unary now. God only made one gender and “male and female” are mental illnesses caused by the original sin 😔
One world, one gender, one love 💗
God cloned Adam to make Eve, thus we all are the same gender. Wake up sheeple!
“If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice”
Ok then, noninteger.
Can I identify as NaN?
I float!
We all float down here
nonunsignedlonglong
non__u128_t
nonus for short
Nono you misunderstand. It’s not “non-binary”.
I’m calling myself enby, which is short for ein bisschen gay.
Reminds me of the: everything is either a duck or not a duck
You’d think so, and yet…
Platypussoe ruin SO many assumptions, such as
- mammals don’t lay eggs
- mammals aren’t venomous
- mammals don’t have beaks/bills
- beavers can’t interbreed with ducks
- a deity created the world and deities don’t get drunk
Clearly all of those assumptions are wrong!
Black and white thinking got me here, sure it’ll get me out, too
That’s what I mean by ruining assumptions: proving them to be wrong lol
that platypus look, hmm
One day aliens are going to meet us and wonder what happened in our evolution that made us biased towards seeing every noun in groups of two, except for rules of nouns which are in groups of three.
I need examples or I don’t understand.
Male-female, darkness-light, plant-animal, ying-yang, mind-body, earth-heaven, spiritual-physical, prime-composite, even-odd
3 laws of motion, thermo, robotics, of dielect, and Trinity assignment.
Something strange about us that it is easier to think of opposites but following 3 rules.
plant-animal
I identify as a mushroom
Most of these groups are simply “A” and “Everything not A”. Either a number is odd or it is even. Either a place is lit up or it is dark.
That being said there are also some cases in there where there is more than just two categories (like male-female or plant-animal) but we, for the most part, only think about the most important / biggest ones.
All of this probably comes down to the fact that in order to make sense of the world or brain constantly tries to put things into categories to quickly assess what something is or isn’t. And it makes sense that the easiest way to categorize things is by just going “Is this A or B”?
Sure it makes a degree of sense. It is just easier to look at things that way, less cognitive load. It just didn’t have to be that way. We could have liked putting categories in groups of three.
That’s every binary, though. False are everything that’s not true. Ones are everything that’s not zero.
That’s a fun thing to point out. The rules of 3 especially so, but it’s also using specific examples and lacking to see the complexity of of our ability to communicate and all the other words we have.
Androgynous, tomboy, femboy / twilight, murky, dim / fungus / Ying -Yang is cheating / spirit, form, will / limbo, underworld, cosmos, time / etc…
And even in rules, in Buddhism you have the 8 fold path, the 10 commandments, heck the 613 laws of God in Judaism.
Just don’t be going all “The Number 23” on us just cause it’s easy to find solution confirming biases in common numbers.
Sure there are counter examples. As for Buddhism he had the three great truths: no soul, no plan, everything dies.
