You could say something like “the image of exponentiation over…” to mean the set of values created by applying the function once, but it sounds slightly clunky.
Looks like there aren’t really very many sets of mostly transcendental numbers that have names. Computational numbers and periods are two of them, I’d guess that both probably contain your set, so you could compare with those to see where it gets you.
Fun question! I don’t know the answer other than to say it’s not just the algebraics because of the Gelfond-Schneider constant
Are you sure this is well-defined? You say that a and b are algebraic but “closure” implies that they could also be any members of S. This might mess up your proof that it’s not all the reals if you do mean the closure.
Use it to find the mooving average
I definitely don’t get this comic, but I can give us a starting point on the first statement: “moral situations can be described using Kripke Models”-
Kripke Models are based on Modal Logic, which is a way of doing formal logic including definitions of “necessarily” and “possibly”. The link between Modal Logic and ethics is Deontic logic, where “necessarily” is taken to mean “obligatory” and “possibly” means “permitted”. Sheaves and Topos theory are pure mathematics stuff and “Globo Matho” doesn’t mean anything as far as I can tell.
Be sure to let us all know if you find out what this means!
Facebook comment sections on anything scientific are always entertaining!
Sure 0.999…95
Just kidding, the guy on the left is correct.
!askmath@lemmings.world is one I know of
I remember reading that the transporter was added to TOS mainly to speed up storytelling, with the technobabble behind it being expanded on later. Then replicators/holodeck put in TNG because it made sense based on similar technology. So basically you’re exactly right, it is magic
Counterpoint: if you say you have a number of things, you have at least two things, so maybe 1 is not a number either. (I’m going to run away and hide now)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_prime
2 -> twin, 4 -> cousin, 6 -> sexy, 8 -> ???
I just assumed it was one of these http://www.voting.ukscientists.com/penrose.html
Reminds me of this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford’s_law
More likely a mathematician would correct you instead of crying. Pi is not infinite, its decimal expansion is infinite!
Yes, I remember seeing this comment. The bias there is really obvious to anyone following the discussion.
I always found it funny to read it as Sharon, and now you’re telling me it’s named after someone called Charlene? This keeps getting better