• tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    80·
    2 months ago

    Thank you to the voters that said the dbzer0 posters are cool, though someone said something like “I never noticibly noticed any user from that comm” and I feel personally affronted

    • Nakoichi [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      52·
      2 months ago

      I noticed you comrade, and for what it’s worth I was fully hesitation-2 when I cast my vote to defederate on principle. We would have welcomed you and the other cool folks with open arms if you decided to make a hex account but it looks like that is unnecessary.

      That said, I did change my vote because I agree staying federated while banning db0 and Unruffled is the funniest option.

      • tocopherol [any]@hexbear.netEnglish
        27·
        2 months ago

        stalin-heart I actually did make one just in case haha, and for the emojis mostly. I just find it so odd when they say on other instances that hexbearites are all mean bullies, seriously y’all are great. And the funniest!

          • Nakoichi [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
            11·
            2 months ago

            No but if you ever fuck up on one of those accounts the other gets banned for ban evasion. But you would never cross the party line right comrade? (I am an anarchist I just larp as a staunch NKVD officer for moderation purposes.)

            • silent_water [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
              10·
              2 months ago

              I have to say, it makes me so happy we have normal ass anarchists on this site. so many internet anarchists are such fucking weird anticommunists - but I never meet those types in organizing circles IRL. like I tell them I’m a communist and they’re response is always open arms solidarity and unity. even when we have disagreements about AES, it’s jovial and rooted in real historical knowledge and we educate each other. I suspect being terminally online just rots your brain.

    • SUPAVILLAINEnglish
      3·
      2 months ago

      I’m gonna keep it a buck with y’all: I’ve never once met a decent poster from your fed. I’ve been subconsciously lumping you lot in with programming.dev, pawb.social, and mander.xyz’s posters since being made aware of you just based on how many settlers hang there.

  • player2@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    70·
    2 months ago

    I came over here when /r/piracy moved and at first I was confused by hexbear. Over time I’ve come to embrace the ideas and movement and I appreciate the discussions on here. Sorry if I’ve frustrated any of you over the past year, I’ve really had a shift in perspective coming from a ballot box liberal background.

      • booty [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
        21·
        2 months ago

        No. You can’t divide by zero and get infinity. x / 0 = NaN, it can’t be defined, dividing by zero is impossible.

        • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          112·
          2 months ago

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero

          Probs skim a wiki page before trying to correct someone :) conventions are just conventions. All maths is arbitrary (e.g. n^0 being defined as 1 is so nice patterns around power addition and such hold at 0 but “n times n zero times” is sort of a nonsense question if the operation is taken at it’s most naive and direct interpretation)

          Also not a number isn’t a mathematical construct, it’s a value computer software returns to handle edge cases in a predictable fashion.

          • KnilAdlez [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
            21·
            2 months ago

            I now vote for defederation due to this pedantic response. Division by zero is undefined under the rational number set which is what pretty much anyone on earth will think of. It does not reach the same value as you take the limit from either side. It’s not a convention it is an axiom. Math is not arbitrary, it must all be proven n^0=1 is not a convention, it is proven in many different ways.

            • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
              6·
              2 months ago

              I guess that’s fair, I’m being a bit sloppy. We prove things inside of axioms we accept, and can develop systems consistent with different sets of axioms but there’s not necessarily any reason to choose one set over another. Doesn’t 0^0 come from Euler being like “shut up it works nicer this way” though? or was it Russel?

              We can’t prove our axioms, and the rational number set isn’t more true than anything else, it just tends to be more useful in normal arse problems.

                • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
                  6·
                  2 months ago

                  And anyone who’s cared for a baby would tell you that lullabies are the most useful sort of music but they’re hardly what I want to talk about when music comes up :P

              • booty [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
                5·
                2 months ago

                Does everyone have to provide a disclaimer on every comment they ever make regarding math? (Note: This comment refers only to the system of mathematics every single person reading this comment is familiar with. If you make up different rules then those rules will apply instead of the ones I’m talking about.)

                • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
                  4·
                  2 months ago

                  I didn’t intend any hostility, the world is just nuanced and really fun. I often see assertions of rules of thumb presented as factual statements without any hint of further complexity existing and it makes me sad as people read that and think the world is simple and makes sense.

                  It’s much more true to say something like “usually we can’t divide by zero” and that leaves room for someone curious to go “huh!” and scurry off on their own and learn something fascinating.

          • silent_water [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
            16·
            2 months ago

            division is not defined for 0. it can yield multiple values, any value at all, explode to infinity, etc… but even that statement depends on taking a limit because you can’t actually divide by zero. you break basic algebraic laws if you try to include it. it’s such a essential fact of algebra that you only name an element of a ring 0 if it’s the additive identity and always multiplies to zero. when you extend such a set to a field, you define a division operation as multiplication by the multiplicative inverse except for the additive identity because such an operation is never well-defined.

            your Wikipedia link is discussing limits. limits are only well-defined when you can prove that every step of the limiting process is well-defined and the overall sequence converges absolutely. if I just write 5/0, there’s no sequence - you can’t say the limit diverges to infinity or resolves to a specific number because there is no limiting sequence to begin with. you need a function like sin(x)/x to produce a limit such that you know for certain that 0/0 in this very particular case is 0 (ie the discontinuity at 0 is removable).

            if you’re interested in this, you’re looking for ring theory. a lot of textbooks will give you the basis to prove that division by zero produces inconsistent results for any field - this is why it’s one of the field axioms.

            • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
              3·
              2 months ago

              I wasn’t talking about limits. Read the stuff about extended real lines etc. There are some (2 or 3? idk not many) systems where we do define 1/0 as infinity.

              I do think your right in the framework of ring theory though, but I haven’t done much of that. It’s a framework for analysing a lot of algebra and the maths we usually do but I don’t think it’s the universal truth of all mathematics which is possible. Am I wrong there?

              • silent_water [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
                11·
                2 months ago

                sure, you can extend the real line but you’re basically defining a new value that behaves a lot like NaN in software. you have to be very careful about the operations because of the strange properties of the new terms introduced. what you get out loses a lot of the basic properties you’re used to with arithmetic - ie afaik it’s neither a field nor a ring. it’s also a really misleading statement to say it’s dividing by zero - you’re changing what division by zero even means. and the infinity you get back isn’t infinity in the usual sense - the supremum of the natural numbers. rather it’s a symbolic infinity.

                basically, it’s as much division by zero as -1/12 is the sum of the natural numbers. they’re both true in a very particular sense but only after you change the meaning of all the words in the statement.

                said another way, you can make anything you like true by introducing new axioms but those axioms have deep impacts on what’s true in the new system those axioms generate and it’s misleading to say that the ability to introduce those axioms makes an undefined operation sensible in a system that lacks those axioms.

                • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
                  3·
                  2 months ago

                  Ok I suppose that’s fair, most people probably are taking division as meaning in the sense it applies in what is it even called, default maths? real analysis or whatever, and while people call the operation division in other systems it’s sort of a homophone for a rather different thing that shares characteristics.

                  People should still learn about the Riemann sphere though and it’s a sensible operation under that. We do it all the time in quantum shit mwahahahaha.

          • booty [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
            8·
            2 months ago

            Also not a number isn’t a mathematical construct

            I know that, I was using it in the literal sense. x / 0 = not a number. It isn’t a number. It is not something defined mathematically. I could just as easily have said undefined, N/A, or anything else.

            conventions are just conventions. All maths is arbitrary

            you cannot take an object and divide it into 0 pieces. The expression is nonsensical to begin with.

          • mathemachristian [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
            3·
            2 months ago

            Maybe learn some algebra before you start being pedantic. You can’t divide by zero and any notation that does is shorthand for something else. There is no way to define 6/0 in the same way as 6/3 and the fact that you need a whole-ass metric space so you can have convergent sequences shows that.

            And n0 is not just arbitrary but the definition of an empty sequence of an operation is that it yields the neutral element. The empty sum yields 0, the empty product yields 1 and n0, in the most naive and direct interpretation, Is n multiplied by itself no times, hence an empty product and therefore yields 1 (there is a caveat for 00 but that’s like a whole lecture). Sure that is arbitrary in the sense that any axiomatic system is arbitrary but not in the /0 sense where it keeps changing based on context and no self-consistent axiomatic system is possible where /0 is assigned a value.

    • Nakoichi [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      17·
      2 months ago

      Definitely the funniest option and one of the greatest collaborative bits of all time. It seems like even the dbzer0 users hate db0 the admin.

      • Legend@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
        2·
        2 months ago

        I don’t think they do . I used to be there and eh I never hated or loved him, maybe liked him a bit .

  • SadSadSatellite @lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    40·
    2 months ago

    Glad to hear it. I may have made an ass of myself on here a few times, but a few patient hexbears showed me what I needed to get it. If you defederated, I’d have to make an account and convince the mods I know better now.

    • ButtBidet [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      23·
      2 months ago

      Almost everyone here was a cringe liberal at some point in the lives. Most of us (myself included) only found the light around the time of Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn elections.

  • the_post_of_tom_joad [any, any]@hexbear.netEnglish
    12·
    2 months ago

    Man i had no idea there was gonna be a vote like this today. I was just talking bout the 'bear over there too. Pardon me for being out of the loop but what happened? Mods from hexbear kicked up a fuss? From db0? Can someone point me to the drama?