← Back to context Comment by lovecg 10 days ago It’s only “natural” up to a point. I’ve never seen 10^100 of something so there’s that. 6 comments lovecg Reply dullcrisp 10 days ago The number of ways to shuffle a deck with 70 cards, approximately? otikik 10 days ago "The number of x" is not "natural". dullcrisp 10 days ago This is caveman logic and I support it. edanm 9 days ago Why? The number of ways to shuffle 5 cards is a relevant thing to talk about, and is a perfectly fine number we use all the time.What about 6 cards? 7 cards? At what point does it become "not natural"? 2 replies →
dullcrisp 10 days ago The number of ways to shuffle a deck with 70 cards, approximately? otikik 10 days ago "The number of x" is not "natural". dullcrisp 10 days ago This is caveman logic and I support it. edanm 9 days ago Why? The number of ways to shuffle 5 cards is a relevant thing to talk about, and is a perfectly fine number we use all the time.What about 6 cards? 7 cards? At what point does it become "not natural"? 2 replies →
otikik 10 days ago "The number of x" is not "natural". dullcrisp 10 days ago This is caveman logic and I support it. edanm 9 days ago Why? The number of ways to shuffle 5 cards is a relevant thing to talk about, and is a perfectly fine number we use all the time.What about 6 cards? 7 cards? At what point does it become "not natural"? 2 replies →
edanm 9 days ago Why? The number of ways to shuffle 5 cards is a relevant thing to talk about, and is a perfectly fine number we use all the time.What about 6 cards? 7 cards? At what point does it become "not natural"? 2 replies →
The number of ways to shuffle a deck with 70 cards, approximately?
"The number of x" is not "natural".
This is caveman logic and I support it.
Why? The number of ways to shuffle 5 cards is a relevant thing to talk about, and is a perfectly fine number we use all the time.
What about 6 cards? 7 cards? At what point does it become "not natural"?
2 replies →