I thought I was being a reductionist but it seems from that article I might be closer to the truth than I thought. It’s weirdly disappointing that it simply boils down to some childish tactic of pretending to be confused by the results, instead of there being some obscure legal precedent.

Can someone better versed in US politics give a quick rundown on how the fake electoral scheme actually works? I’m aware of the physical steps involved but I don’t see how the scheme doesn’t just fail at the first hurdle. In what world can a person not assigned as elector send in their own certificate and not be immediately disregarded? To my mind it sounds like this:

Mrs Krabappel: I’m the fourth grade teacher and have counted the votes for fourth grade class president. Martin Prince wins with 2 votes.

Miss Hoover: No, I’m the real fourth grade teacher and I declare that Bart Simpson wins with 2 votes.

Principal Skinner: There’s no way of discerning who the real fourth grade teacher is. My only option is to ignore the results of the vote and decide by fiat.

Sorry but that knife screams “mall ninja.”

They’re the same picture.

Depends on your frame of reference. When traversing the surface of a globe, your described concept of a straight line isn’t intuitive.

Forgive the ignorance, but are regular OBGYN appointments a thing in the US? From the media I’ve consumed it appears so. I know people with actual gynaecological issues like endometriosis, and even they find the idea of regular checkups without a cause weird.

”For a comment.”

In this day and age, who hasn’t made incredibly specific ultraviolent threats against an elected official while constantly reassuring others that they are serious/making a promise to enact these threats? Did this upstanding citizen simply forget to cite his first amendment rights to the agents?

Yes, there are infinities of larger magnitude. It’s not a simple intuitive comparison though. One might think “well there are twice as many whole numbers as even whole numbers, so the set of whole numbers is larger.” In fact they are the same size.

Two most commonly used in mathematics are countably infinite and uncountably infinite. A set is countably infinite if we can establish a one to one correspondence between the set of natural numbers (counting numbers) and that set. Examples are all whole numbers (divide by 2 if the natural number is even, add 1, divide by 2, and multiply by -1 if it’s odd) and rational numbers (this is more involved, basically you can get 2 copies of the natural numbers, associate each pair (a,b) to a rational number a/b then draw a snaking line through all the numbers to establish a correspondence with the natural numbers).

Uncountably infinite sets are just that, uncountable. It’s impossible to devise a logical and consistent way of saying “this is the first number in the set, this is the second,…) and somehow counting every single number in the set. The main example that someone would know is the real numbers, which contain all rational numbers and all irrational numbers including numbers such as e, π, Φ etc. which are not rational numbers but can either be described as solutions to rational algebraic equations (“what are the solutions to “x^2 - 2 = 0”) or as the limits of rational sequences.

Interestingly, the rational numbers are a dense subset within the real numbers. There’s some mathsy mumbo jumbo behind this statement, but a simplistic (and insufficient) argument is: pick 2 real numbers, then there exists a rational number between those two numbers. Still, despite the fact that the rationals are infinite, and dense within the reals, if it was possible to somehow place all the real numbers on a huge dartboard where every molecule of the dartboard is a number, then throwing a dart there is a 0% chance to hit a rational number and a 100% chance to hit an irrational number. This relies on more sophisticated maths techniques for measuring sets, but essentially the rationals are like a layer of inconsequential dust covering the real line.

There’s no problem at all with not understanding something, and I’d go so far as to say it’s virtuous to seek understanding. I’m talking about a certain phenomenon that is overrepresented in STEM discussions, of untrained people (who’ve probably took some internet IQ test) thinking they can hash out the subject as a function of raw brainpower. The ceiling for “natural talent” alone is actually incredibly low in any technical subject.

There’s nothing wrong with meming on a subject you’re not familiar with, in fact it’s often really funny. It’s the armchair experts in the thread trying to “umm actually…” the memer when their “experience” is a YouTube video at best.

I like this comment. It reads like a mathematician making a fun troll based on comparing rates of convergence (well, divergence considering the sets are unbounded). If you’re not a mathematician, it’s actually a really insightful comment.

So the value of the two sets isn’t some inherent characteristic of the two sets. It is a function which we apply to the sets. Both sets are a collection of bills. To the set of singles we assign one value function: “let the value of this set be $1 times the number of bills in this set.” To the set of hundreds we assign a second value function: “let the value of this set be $100 times the number of bills in this set.”

Now, if we compare the value restricted to two finite subsets (set within a set) of the same size, the subset of hundreds is valued at 100 times the subset of singles.

Comparing the infinite set of bills with the infinite set of 100s, there is no such difference in values. Since the two sets have unbounded size (i.e. if we pick any number N no matter how large, the size of these sets is larger) then naturally, any positive value function applied to these sets yields an unbounded number, no mater how large the value function is on the hundreds “I decide by fiat that a hundred dollar bill is worth $1million” and how small the value function is on the singles “I decide by fiat that a single is worth one millionth of a cent.”

In overly simplified (and only slightly wrong) terms, it’s because the sizes of the sets are so incalculably large compared to any positive value function, that these numbers just get absorbed by the larger number without perceivably changing anything.

The weight question is actually really good. You’ve essentially stumbled upon a comparison tool which is comparing the rates of convergence. As I said previously, comparing the value of two finite subsets of bills of the same size, we see that the value of the subset of hundreds is 100 times that of the subset of singles. This is a repeatable phenomenon no matter what size of finite set we choose. By making a long list of set sizes and values “one single is worth $1, 2 singles are worth $2,…” we can define a series which we can actually use for comparison reasons. Note that the next term in the series of hundreds always increases at a rate of 100 times that of the series of singles. Using analysis techniques, we conclude that the set of hundreds is approaching its (unbounded) limit at 100 times the rate of the singles.

The reason we cannot make such comparisons for the unbounded sets is that they’re unbounded. What is the weight of an unbounded number of hundreds? What is the weight of an unbounded number of collections of 100x singles?

This kind of thread is why I duck out of casual maths discussions as a maths PhD.

The two sets have the same value, that is the value of both sets is unbounded. The set of 100s approaches that value 100 times quicker than the set of singles. Completely intuitive to someone who’s taken first year undergraduate logic and calculus courses. Completely unintuitive to the lay person, and 100 lay people can come up with 100 different wrong conclusions based on incorrect rationalisations of the statement.

I’ve made an effort to just not participate since back when people were arguing Rick and Morty infinite universe bollocks. “Infinite universes means there are an infinite number of identical universes” really boils my blood.

It’s why I just say “algebra” when asked what I do. Even explaining my research (representation theory) to a tangentially related person, like a mathematical physicist, just ends in tedious non-discussion based on an incorrect framing of my work through their lens of understanding.

There are just so many quests in the Lower City, and they’re all great.