Thread 519027897

If you don't understand this you are not white

>>519027897 (OP)
Do your own homework.

>>519027897 (OP)
Do you place arbitrary and trivial qualifiers on being white so you can feel better about not qualifying for the important stuff yourself?

>>519027897 (OP)
philosophy is not math

>>519027953
It's not homework and I understand it.
>>519027980
Yeah
>>519028051
Algebraic topology is math, not philosophy.

>>519027897 (OP)
I fell for this then I realized money was more important.

>>519028116
Can do both. Money during the day, math during evenings.

>>519027897 (OP)
Only niggers are impressed by algebraic topology and feel the urge to prove themselves to strangers.

>>519028074
toplogy without geometry is lithuanian

I am not white. Hence I prefer analysis to algebraic topology.
As an avowed fetishist, a white man to me is any occidental who makes my dick rock hard. Otherwise, you are not white.

>>519027897 (OP)
this thread is

>>519028206
Evidently you are not impressed by it, suggesting you understand it. Is that correct?

>>519028361
homotopic to what? You can't just say something is homotopic, homotopic is a binary relation, you have to specify what it's homotopic to.

>>519028074
then you should be able to explain it in your own words. or are you not white?

>>519028074
> and I understand it.
prove it

>>519027897 (OP)
bruh this shit is simple, the problem for me its integrals

>>519028429
Sure, I am able to do that.
>>519028430
Sure, what would you like to know?

>>519028482
uuuum
explain Kantor's infinite infinity theorem or something I dunno

>>519028482
well go ahead

>>519028482
Stop pattering and explain the lesson to the class smarty pants mayo monkey

>>519028418
im calling you a faggot, nerd. nobody cares about your homework

>>519028513
Cantor's theorem on real numbers just says you cannot make an exhaustive infinite list of real numbers. There will always be some missing.
The common interpretation is to say that this means there are more real nubmers than natural numbers, and that it's somehow a larger infinity, although I do not agree with that interpretation.
The general set theoretic form states that for any set X, the power set P(X) cannot be embedded in X.

>>519028715
>and that it's somehow a larger infinity
well, isn't it
since one infinity literally has a number the other doesn't

>>519028779
Well everyone agrees the set of natural numbers N are the same size of infinity as the set of rationals Q (fractions like 13/18). And Q has way more numbers than N.
So to answer your question, no. You want the notion of size to be independent of whatever particular elements there are. Two sets could have completely different elements, like no elements in common, and you want to be able to say whether they have the same size or not. So you can't just look whether one set is a subset of the other, you need a more invariant notion. The common notion of size is cardinality, given by the existence of bijections between sets.

>>519027897 (OP)
If you wouldn’t fuck her, then you’re not straight.

>>519028715
>>519028950
I can do that too:
Okay, so here's the deal with Cantor's Theorem. It's a super cool idea from set theory, like, the math of sets, and it basically says: 'No matter what set you have, the set of all its subsets (called the power set) is always bigger than the set itself.'
Even if you're talking about infinite sets, like the set of natural numbers (1, 2, 3, and so on), the power set of that is even more infinite. Wild, right

vague expressions of intelligence are meaningless in the age of anonymity on the internet
you should know that. some guides for future reference
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e93xPmzHoic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpG8_jfQhxA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3NYj3i34lw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odPnVhT_YAc&t

>>519027897 (OP)
I asked chatGPT and it said the only possible conclusion is that you are a nigger

>>519028950
>So you can't just look whether one set is a subset of the other, you need a more invariant notion.
why

>>519027897 (OP)
looks like a proof of commutativity using sets, either for a triangle or some object in trigonometry. maybe it proves one of the parallel line rules idk

For me it’s ratios.
>8:1
8 replies : 1 faggot op

>>519027897 (OP)
>Topology

>>519029058
Because let's say you have the sets {1} and {2,3}. Neither is a subset of the other. Yet you want to compare their sizes. {1} has an element that {2,3} doesn't have and {2,3} has elements that {1} doesn't have. So "has selements other doesn't have" doesn't make one larger than another.
>>519028975
It's important to note however that size in set theory is very different to size in real life, because in real life size is about the object itself, while in set theory "size/cardinality" is not an intrinsic notion but rather a statement about what kind of functions there are between sets.
It's not enough for me to know the set X to know its size, I have to also know what kind of functions there are to and from X in the set theoretic universe to determine its size.
In advanced set theory you do forcing where you keep the set the same but basically add or remove functions to and from it, changing its size, or forcing its size to be one thing rather than another.
So for example with forcing you can change the set theoretic universe to make the cardinality of the reals to be omega_1, or omega_2, or omega_42, whatever you want, basically by adding what kind of functions there are in the universe.
There are intrinsic properties in set theory which are called absolute, and don't change as you expand the model. So for example being of size 3 is an absolute property. But for infinite sets it's very different, cardinality is no longer absolute. So "the set X is countably infinite" could be false in one universe and true in an expanded universe.
This is why I kinda dislike calling cardinality "size" or "how big a set is", because it's really not just about the set, just as important are the kinds of functions there are in the universe, i.e. how rich or poor the universe is.

>>519028116
Lets start with wiping our ass correctly and not eating shit and you can work your way up from there, you little feces-smeared urchin.

>>519029372
>So "has selements other doesn't have" doesn't make one larger than another.
....but one has more elements than the other, shouldn't that mean one is BIGGER ?

>>519028715
>>519028950
way to prove that you're an autistic mathcel.
your gaylord math will never get us to the stars, or other dimensions.
know your place faggotlord.

>>519027897 (OP)
Looks like Hindu slop.

>>519029403
>shart in mart insults shart in street
I love to see it

>>519029350
The pic is showing a natural cohomology map delta (triangle) is well behaved with respect to boundary operators.

>>519028418
he said it's a homo(sexual) topic, oh you autist, you.

>>519029428
Yeah that's the idea. But the problems start with infinite sets. Consider the set of natural numbers {0,1,2,3,...} and the set of even numbers {0,2,4,...}.
They are both infinite. But which one is larger? Or are they the same size?

>>519027897 (OP)
How does this help me know what a duck is?

>>519029527
It has nothing to do with ducks? Why are you bringing up ducks?

>>519029527
>How does this help me know what a duck is?
Yeah. A duck remains a duck under any continuous deformation, even after reading algebraic topology.

>>519029589
Then how is it useful?

>>519027897 (OP)
Wittgenstein later recanted the Tractatus

>>519029619
A duck isn't defined just by calling it a duck

Fed has started utilising TOMO to reinflate the repo market signifying a distress in the state of overall market liquidity
I like math but first thing first, it's a prioritization skill
Paste the sentence above to chatgpt if you don't get it

>>519029631
It's useful because it provides tools that are helpful for calculating the homotopy groups of spheres.

>>519029671
Fair point. In topology terms: a duck is defined by its invariant properties under continuous deformation: Two legs, feathers, waterproof coating, quacking apparatus. You could stretch it, compress it, bend it into a pretzel, and as long as those structural features remain, you've still got a duck.

But if you continuously deform a duck into a coffee mug, then topologically speaking, you've got a problem... and probably also a very confused duck.

>>519027897 (OP)
Fucking Spanier’s Algebraic Topology.

>>519027897 (OP)
I always found this higher level math stuff fascinating. I wish I wasn't a midwit to be able to study and understand it in more depth.

>>519029872
Correct. Have you read it?

>>519029904
You can be a midwit and understand it. I'm a midwit and I understand it.

>>519029910
No not really just seen it.
It's not for brainlets like me.

>>519029904
It really just boils down to memorization of symbols/letters to ideas and understanding relationships between concepts
The "midwit" feeling often comes from the symbol shock, not actual inability. Anyone can understand relationships and memorize

>>519027897 (OP)
This page is almost certainly part of a proof or a detailed explanation of a theorem. The combination of these elements—inclusion maps, retractions, and a commutative diagram—is typical when discussing topics like:
Exact Sequences (in homology/cohomology theory)
Fibrations or Cofibrations
The Van Kampen Theorem
The relationship between fundamental groups of different spaces.

>>519027897 (OP)
selective breeding can make everyone geniuses in a couple generations.

>>519030113
>he needs ai to decipher unions
It's easier than you think anon.

>>519029755
Then we speak very different inner languages.
>>519029817
That's still just defining a duck by it's shape. Nothing is only what it appears to be.

>>519027897 (OP)
Your flag has nigger colours. Are you sure this math shit qualifies you as white? I highly doubt it.

>>519030113
Yeah it's from obstruction theory. A bit more complicated than the topics you mentioned, it's factorizing spaces using Potnikov towers (which consist of nice fibrations involving Eilenenber-MacLane spaces) and then reducing the extension problem to successive problems for each block of the tower.

>>519030300
False inference. Not understand => not white does not imply the converse "understand => white". That's a completely separate logically independent claim. I could be nonwhite and understand it, and it be perfectly consistent with the claim "not understand => not white".

>>519027897 (OP)
>homotopic
lol op is a fag

>>519027897 (OP)
All that bogus will not give you money is just bogus that Jews invented to make goyim lose time studying it.

>>519030387
And what about your rastafarian flag in confused order?

>>519030387
still no application to reality
waiting itt

>>519030387
Why not just say you're symbolically not white if you don't understand it? As in being nigger brained. I don't understand it but I'm not nigger brained and I know this cus no one can ever tell me what a damn duck is. It should be obvious.

>>519030392
This is the author of the book I've posted the screenshot of. And yes, he is jewish. Problem?

I don’t like math so I don’t know or care what I’m looking at.

>>519030640
>>519030575
However, a lot of the founding figures in the field, such as Norman Steenrod, are quite white. This guy together with Eilenberg invented the modern axiomatic approach to homology and cohomology theory. Looks a bit like the american nazi Rockwell.

>>519030708
Thats a good attitude to have. Don't let any mathholes tell you otherwise.

>>519030575
A duck is a duck, it does duck things. I see them at the park, they pooped on my brother’s head when he was little while trying to feed them bread.
>Duck

>>519030764
And I invented a new form of poetry. Where does this stuff apply in life? Industry? What benefit is it other than ego stroking?

>>519030785
Only math I need is that I use. Measurements and simple basic math, occasionally a simple equation. Math is not fun on its own.

>>519030807
You're on the path. Ducks are NOT birds that much I'll tell you.

>>519030764
>Norman Steenrod
I steen'd his rod and massive balls

>>519030942
And neither are penguins, they can tap dance. Birds cannot tap dance

>>519030872
It nourishes the soul and is an objective shared striving towards greater understanding of the nature of reality, which is a noble goal. There's a whole ocean of not understood and unexplored topics in basic mathematics.

as stated above
philosophy is not math

>>519031048
I assure you homology theory is not speculation. It's a well established body of knowledge that provides tools to study many subjects.

I remember doing things like this during my PhD in my math and fluids studies for mechanical engineering. Does anyone here use this in their careers?

>>519031089
I agree with you, philosophy is not math. Not sure however what that has to do with this thread. Seems off topic.

>>519027897 (OP)
Looks like faggot shit to me, thank G*d I'm not white

>>519027897 (OP)
42

>>519031034
Birds don't understand family. Ducks keep theirs in line. Even the odd and the weak.
>>519031035
Just don't forget the underlying essence
>>519031089
There's philosophy in all things. You just see it with a closed eye

>>519031422
>They constructed an example where a certain operation produces an inconsistent result, proving that whatever property or theorem they're testing fails.
Fuck i love proof by contradiction

>>519031541
>>519031422
I personally see no indication that it's a proof by contradiction. For example, the word "contradiction" is not mentioned once.

>>519027897 (OP)
nigger i work @ argonne, the burger version of cern who use a mobius strip as a fucking mascot along w/a poojeet war god.

>>519031618
That's the problem with math and why it can't explain reality. It doesn't allow for contradiction in a universe built on paradox. Math will only ever see the substance never the substrate until it's reconciled.

>>519027897 (OP)
a huge redpill is that math notation isn't actually complex, its just simple steps repeated systematically. rewrite this in pseudocode and it becomes very easy to understand.

>>519030236
ai is the white mans collective brain

>>519031618
I meant counter example not contradiction. Idk why I typed that. I should have been in bed 3 hours ago

>>519031788
>rewrite this in pseudocode and it becomes very easy to understand
Lmao no it won't. It would be incomprehensible.

>>519027897 (OP)
>>519031422
changing the font to Wingdings isn't fun past middle school

>>519031849
In Soviet Lithuania, a man goes to the market and asks, “Do you have potatoes?”
The shopkeeper replies, “Comrade, this is the shop with no meat. The shop with no potatoes is across the street.”

>>519031954
There are no wingdings in the picture I posted.
>>519031957
Good one.

>>519028966
With the state of women being what it is, I'd probably rather drill a feminized faggot in the ass because at least the faggot won't complain when I don't call back.

>>519031788
>>519031849
It's not that bad.

>>519027897 (OP)
>you can put this into chatgpt and say explain it like im 5

ok nigger wheres my reward

>>519027897 (OP)
Physicists make shit like this and still try to convince everyone they aren't magicians using runes of power.

>>519032343
bridge rectifier symbol (middle) is based and redpilled

>>519027897 (OP)
>Checks flag
>Sages thread
>Reports thread for low quality
>Hides thread.
No OP thats not how this works.

>>519028715
>The common interpretation is to say that this means there are more real nubmers than natural numbers, and that it's somehow a larger infinity, although I do not agree with that interpretation.

The fuck you mean you don't agree? People argue about if there is an infinity between countable and continuum or there isn't , not that continuum doesn't exist or whatever your shizo-theory is

>>519032641
>not that continuum doesn't exist
Can you read? That's not what I said. I'm merely arguing philosophy/interpretation, not the mathematics itself. I think it's basically unjustified to call it size or say "there are more real numbers than natural numbers", because that's not really how this works, for reasons I explained. Of course I agree with the mathematical statement that there is no bijection between the naturals and the reals in ZFC, that's not my contention.

>>519027897 (OP)
For I comprehend the probability for you getting laid equals 0%.

>>519027897 (OP)
good luck breeding if you understand this

>>519033041
>>519033332
I have a White wife and understand this.
+ before I got married I donated my 160 iq sperm to semen banks multiple times.
gg scrubos

>>519027897 (OP)
Great, guess I'm still white then.

t. engineer

>>519033838
Why do you know about cohomology as as an engineer?

>>519033796
>160 iq
>signed 1 sided contract with the government

>>519033796
How come you understand this?

>>519034578
read, flag i just remembered now exists nigger >>519032222

>>519027897 (OP)
So you’re not white.

>>519027897 (OP)

if you don't know how to frame a house, you are not a man. checkmate retard

mathematics is useless

>>519027897 (OP)

nigger-tier, the realm of street shitting jeets. step up your econometrics game, chuddy.

>>519027897 (OP)
>homotopic
>cohomology
sounds gay

>>519029403
I will use your mom's mouth for cleaning my asshole.

I’m making two black and white copies of art and selling it so I can buy weed. Black and white art is much cheaper to copy and thus the profit margins are higher. Just steal from graffiti artists and drain out the expensive color. Niggers tongue my anus. Framing two with basic materials is inexpensive and just down the street.

OP. This is what Grok says about the theorem:

This excerpt from algebraic topology (likely John Hatcher’s Algebraic Topology, Ch. 3) sets up tools for deriving the long exact cohomology sequence of a pair of spaces ((X, A)).
In brief:
• It defines inclusion maps (i) and a weak retraction (r) between “cylinder-like” product spaces (e.g., (A \times I \times X \times {i}) to (A \times I \times X \times {1}), where (I = [0,1]) is the unit interval).
• Using exactness of the cohomology sequence for these spaces, any cohomology class (u \in H^q(A \times I \times X \times {i})) lifts uniquely to (u’ \in H^q(A \times I \times X \times {i}, A \times I \times X \times {1})) satisfying (u = i^* u’ + \partial i^* u) (boundary terms).
• A map (h: (X, A) \to (A \times I \times X \times {i}, A \times I \times X \times {1})) induces an iso (h^), yielding a natural epimorphism (transformation) (\Delta: H^q(A \times I \times X \times {i}) \to H^q(X, A)) via (\Delta(u) = h^ u’).
• Lemma 4 proves commutativity (up to sign ((-1)^{q+1})) of a triangle diagram linking (\Delta), a connecting homomorphism (\delta: H^q(A \times I \times X \times {i}) \to H^{q-1}(X, A) \times (I, I)), and another boundary map (\tau: H^{q-1}(X, A) \times (I, I) \to H^q(X, A))—essential for exactness in pair cohomology sequences. The proof mirrors an earlier homotopy argument (Thm. 8.2.4).

I guess I’m not white.

>>519027897 (OP)
if someone urinated on your flag, youre not white

>>519036407

shut up, thirdie.

>>519036407
>likely chapter 3
>mirrors earlier argument in chapter 8
The rest is completely wrong too.

>>519037066

Interesting! Don’t care.

>>519034223
I'm not going to doxx myself but one of my software patents is pretty close to an implementation of pure mathematics. I also try to keep up with developments in the field as a matter of personal interest. A question for you, why does Lithuania use the toothpaste flag instead of Vytis? Vytis was cool.

>>519033796
Are you me? I used to donate on the regular at the California Cryo next to Harvard.

wrong board

>>519036681

Lmao. Saved. Tyvm.

>>519027897 (OP)
same old same old, no applied math no buy, no code, nocoiner trash

>>519027897 (OP)
I dont understand this and am white.

>>519027897 (OP)
I don't need to understand that. I have Grok

>>519039396
Grok doesn't understand it either

Logic generally has no application outside of serving as a niche heuristic for everyday life and it’s only particular use is the application of Boolean logic to electrical gates.

>>519027897 (OP)
>cohomology
Jesus Christ this stuff is way niche, you need a lot of mathematics to get this deep. Most, though not all, who do so will be white or east asian. Terence Tao is a mathematical genius for example.

>>519027897 (OP)
how did geeks not notice the jeet menace?

>>519036407
>Cohomology
Is this the scientific study of sexual interaction between zutts and prophet moohammad?

>>519027897 (OP)
waste of time. instead i started working on my own business.

>>519041986
>yellow shit
is it true that nogs shit yellow? ive never seen a nigger turd to be precise. this would render you even more alien to me than you allready are.

>>519041864
Cohomology is just like homology but with arrows reversed. Dual of homology. The advantage is that it gives you multiplication. It also arises naturally in obstruction theory.

>>519042607
math is not 1/2 philosophy

>>519043246
in the ancient world it was

>>519043317
Who cares? Philosophy is love of knowledge. Math is type of knowledge, if you love math, I wont stop you from calling yourself a philosopher. Just semantics.

>>519043317
hot take euclid

>>519028418
Kek you just got rekt so hard. Mr high iq. But don't get the message when someone stats this thread is gay

>>519043569
>Who cares?
pythagoras

>>519037943
>pretty close to an implementation of pure mathematics
What does that even mean? Sounds a little sus/schizo desu.

>>519027897 (OP)
Slavs are not human.

>>519043280
i see it, its hard to believe.
>yellow/orange shit
these are aliens.

>>519043246
Math is a subset of philosophy

>>519043648
Good thing I am not a slav then.

my shit is always brown, trust me on that one. should ask for turd pics instead of hand pics you idiots!!!

>>519043855
>that flag
>not slav

Of course, Ivan.

>>519027897 (OP)
If you don't understand this you are not White.

>>519043902
>>519043713
>>519043280
>>519042991
Take your scat shit somewhere else. Nobody asked. Fucking germans man

>>519043977
Lithuanians are not slavs

>>519029521
They are the same side because a function f on the first set that just doubles each element produces the second set. That function, or more commonly a functor, is the isomorphic transformation.

>>519044046
use your logic and math skills to explain how this jeet was able to get a path to ground through the rubber tires

>>519029817
Imagine holding a duck by thumb in butthole and telling us it’s a coffee mug.

>>519044255
Wasnt talking to you + you dont know what functor means

>>519043641
He means MATLAB or Mathematica or something like that.

>>519037943
Imagine patenting a function from pure math knowing that there are infinite equivalents.

>>519044046
didnt you see his shit is yellow????

>>519044433
You’re talking to the whole board buddy. Functions that take functions as arguments are functors sudaca

>>519028715
literal gibberish
math fags are insufferable

>>519044794
No they are not, idiot. Functions that take functions as arguments are called functionals, not functors. Functors are a type of relation between categories

>>519044828
It's not gibberish.
The power set P(X) is just the set of subsets of X. So for example P({1,2,3}) = {{}, {1}, {2}, {3}, {1,2}, {1,3}, {2,3}, {1,2,3}}
A function f: A-> B is called an injection if f(x) = f(y) implies x=y. A surjection if for any b in B there is an a in A such that f(a) = b. A bijection if it's both an injection and a surjection at the same time, which means exactly one element of A is paired to exactly one element of B using f and vice versa.
Cardinality is defined through bijections. Two sets A,B are said to be of the same cardinality if there is a bijection f: A-> B.
There is no surjection from X to the power set P(X). For suppose we have a surjection f: X -> P(X). Form the set S = {x in X such that x not in f(x)}. Then S is a member of P(X) and since f is a surjection there is an element x in X such that f(x) = S. If x in S then by definition x is not in S, and vice versa, contradiction. Therefore such a function f cannot exist.
That's it, that's the cantor's argument.

>>519027897 (OP)
This is literally gibberish designed to distract high iq individual from doing practical work. If you spend any amount of time pondering over made up academic bulshit you've been had.

>>519045331
You just used a bunch of made up terms to define a made up process that is completely useless.

>>519044162
;)

>>519045555
All terms are made up. And it's not useless, it's the basis of set theory.

>>519028074
math is philosophy. if you don't understand this much you're not err... err...
*checks notes*
... err...

>>519043789
math is a discrete science
philosophy is for pontificating circlejerks

>>519046211
>philosophy is for pontificating circlejerks
Eratosthenes blocks your path

>>519046211
Topology is a continuous science not discrete.

>>519046211
>math is a discrete science
no it's not. its most elementary objects, the unit and the point, are not even properly defined.
physics itself is not quite materialistic with its space and time treated as vessels for matter.

>>519047894
The unit and the point are not the most elementary objects. Sets are, with the most elementary one being the empty set {}. And it's properly defined as the collection with nothing in it.

>>519027897 (OP)
Mathemagicks are nothing more than like schiolzophrenia

>>519048164
Oh jeez, autocorrect fucking butchered that.

>>519048057
and sets are bound to be countable objects, in one way or another, you just can't mathematize (dare i say philosophize?) your way around it.
there is something deeper-running than sets, and it's not even anything remotely technical.

>>519027897 (OP)
But I understand it and I’m a pajeet

>>519048301
>and sets are bound to be countable objects
No, the set of real numbers is uncountable.
>>519048164
Call me a Scholzephrenic then

>>519027897 (OP)
>homotopic
This bait is too low quality for my intellect.

>>519048490
hey, use your knowledge here plz: >>519044266

>>519028051
Math is philosophy. It’s all made up arbitrary bullshit that works well enough but is in fact entirely wrong

>>519048662
retard

Thank Mega Man I'm not white, this shit is like rice runes but much worse, literally cursed!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i79I58A2r_g

>>519027897 (OP)
looks like nigga talk & scratch to me... i think honestly; this is why the white race is lost... cause they lost their minds thinking about bullshit all day.

>>519046968
extend it rationally beyond a sphere
>>519047894
points and units are discrete references
>>519048057
>empty set {}. And it's properly defined as the collection with nothing in it.
an empty set is just nothing
call it a placeholder or 0

>>519050345
>extend it rationally beyond a sphere
Wtf do you mean by that?
>an empty set is just nothing
Wrong. An empty set the thing that contains nothing. An empty box is not nothing, it's an empty box.
The set that contains nothing is different than the set which contains the empty set. I.e. {{}} != {}

>>519027897 (OP)
Fucking Jew sorcery

>>519027897 (OP)
mathematicians are just a different flavor of schizophrenia prove me wrong

>>519028074
Doesnt change the fact youre a faggot

>>519045331
Question- as a guy who had to learn for math like 25 years ago... Istn that the "same" like a matrix or (I'm remember my good old turbo Pascal) an 'array'?

>>519027897 (OP)
Everyone learns this in school.

>>519027897 (OP)
I don't understand this.

Let me guess, you have an extremely large penis and are a millionaire who has a hot young wife?

>>519052555
No, matrices and arrays are unrelated here.

>>519028418
At what age were you diagnosed with autism?

>>519053855
Ok, thank you (I thought it's similar regarding the principle of these)

>>519027897 (OP)
Shut up nerd.

>>519054089
I had never been diagnosed with autism or autism related disorders.
>>519054345
The analogous argument is often given with real numbers, where you make an infinite list of real numbers and make a new number by going along the diagonal of the infinite rectangular array of digits and at each stage pick a different digit from the one that is on the diagonal.
So for example if we're dealing with binary sequences 0/1 and you have a list of numbers like
000...
001..
011...
....
the number you would pick would by
110....
In this case you basically have a 2d array of digits, or a 2d matrix, and you go along the diagonal of that array/matrix.

>>519052669
I don't think that's true.
>>519052756
You can learn it by reading Spanier's book "Algebraic Topology".
>>519051806
I am not homosexual.

>>519028051
Math is philosophy. All of modern math is invented by whites

>>519027897 (OP)
i don't understand this but i have children. you do understand it but you don't have children. therefore understanding this is dysgenic.

>>519054604
>I had never been diagnosed with autism or autism related disorders.
Interesting, so you are being stiff on purpose or is this just one huge ESL moment?
Missing the very simple joke in "homotopic" as a bit?

>>519054604
Hm OK, but I didnt talk about numbers. As example it could be an array of arrays with multiple to endless variables or calls for (as example classes, objects, etc.) which everyone by its own CAN result in infinite numbers (or other results depending on the variable or type) but are always lower than their array of an array which has a bunch of different if these.
So.. I didn't talk about numbers. Hm.

>>519055002
Homotopic is a binary relation. It doesn't make sense to say "X is homotopic". You have to specify what it's homotopic to.

>>519050885
>topology is continuous
what is the topology of nothing?
an empty set is abstraction, i can't touch an abstraction
a carboardbox is not an abstraction

>>519056112
There is only one topology of the empty set, with a single element: the empty set.

>>519027897 (OP)
>cohomology
Let me stop you there.

>>519055926
>not autistic btw
The joke is that the topic of discussion is homosexual i.e. "Homotopic". The joke has nothing to do with the actual definition of homotopic.

>>519028950
So you’re a first year maths student

>>519056929
What made you say that? I already graduated from uni.

>>519056231
this is discrete abstract philosophy
qed

>>519056327
Homotopic doesn't mean homosexual. It means there is a continuous deformation from one thing to another.

>>519027953
fpbp nice try OP

>>519043280
He shits on a little girl. What the hell

>>519043641
I mean a software embodiment of an algorithm used as part of a specific process. Like I said, I'm not going to doxx myself.

>>519044444
Good guess though, and I'm very disappointed that no one checked those MASSIVE QUINTS