Comment by fouronnes3
1 year ago
As a computer scientist this is not surprising either. After all there are only three numbers: 0 1 and n.
1 year ago
As a computer scientist this is not surprising either. After all there are only three numbers: 0 1 and n.
One of my old physics professors said something similar - there are only three numbers in the world - 0, 1, and infinity. No wait, zero is just one divided by infinity, so there are only two numbers, zero and one. So if the answer is not zero, it must be one. (ie, how to justify dimensional analysis and ignore any dimensionaless constant).
Hysterical, especially for the fact that he quotes 'two' and 'three' in the sentence itself.
Another one would be philosophy: there’s nothing, something and everything. Or logic: ∃, ¬∃ and ∀. Just rambling here, but seems like universal concepts across fields.
Chiming in from theoretical linguistics: it is impossible for natural languages to "count", i.e. make reference to numbers other than 0, 1 or infinity.
As an example, there are languages where prenominal genitives are impossible (0).
Then, there are languages, such as German, where only one prenominal genitive is possible (1):
> Annas Haus
> *Annas Hunds Haus
Finally, there are languages, such as English, where an infinite number of prenominal genitives are possible (infinity).
> Anna's house
> Anna's dog's house
> Anna's mother's dog's house
> Anna's mother's sister's ... dog's house
But there are no languages where only two or three prenominal genitives are possible.
This property is taken to be part of Universal Grammar, i.e. the genetic/biological/mental system that makes human language possible.
2 replies →
He already got rid of "three" and just needed a little help to get rid of "two." Since we already have 0 and (almost) everything else can just be "one more" than something else, we only need 0 and one more ... or 1.
One and Done!
Very much like lambda calculus
Remember that `i` is also a number. As in `for i = 0 to n`.
Don’t believe those mathematicians when they tell you that `i` is “imaginary”.
All numbers are imaginary.
sqrt(-1) should have been called w, for "weird".
I use w for the complex roots of 1 though, when rewriting FFT notes.
You mean the legendary “i”. There is no n.
And -0 and NaN
And int_max
That's a implementation detail.
Yea if you're some classical snob.
- Posted by the quantum gang