Remind me of the one where they catch a white guy with cheese
it’s possible for it to be a total ordering and yet for there to be no gayest person. for example, the open interval (0, 1) is totally ordered and yet has no minimum or maximum. (the maximum would be 1, but it’s not included in the interval by definition.)
The set of humans currently alive is finite though
Can sets be dybamic in mathematics?
The world would be a better place if everyone intuitively understood the difference between a spectrum and a scale.
Wait how do they differ? Aren’t radio waves the gayest waves in the electromagnetic spectrum?
See? Thats exactly the problem.
OF COURSE radio waves are the gayest waves in the electromagnetic spectrum. BECAUSE they are the ONLY gay waves in the electromagnetic spectrum.
The spectrum in question:
Don’t ask for more pixels
Why? Because you’re unable to use basic reverse image search or because you’re too lazy and unwilling?
Because they know by doing that they can both get engagement and someone else to find the best quality version for them.
Why would getting engagement matter on lemmyshitpost?
People are trained to serve the algo and do it even in cases where it does nothing.
It’s also why not feeding trolls is a lost art.
Maybe it’s an artistic statement
Let them be :3
Never! (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
┬──┬ ノ( ゜-゜ノ)
Sorry I had to put it back upright, or it would bother me all day
OCD is a spectrum
Since lity is a trum
What about multiple people at the gayest point?
Battle royal
*gayest point known to men yet. You never know man.
So at some point, the original screenshot was posted somewhere that doesn’t allow the words “sexuality” and “spectrum” but “gayest” is a-okay. Interesting.
Let’s not assume that it isn’t allowed unless someone explicitly states that. It’s more like a precaution. We shouldn’t cave to that nonsense but it’s become pervasive. I remember when reddit started autocollapsing comments with certain vulgar language.
X?
Y! Z?
… Oh wait, right, that’s a platform, I keep forgetting.
X displays those words just fine
Formerly known as Twitter*
Now known as shitter.
I still call it Twitter because their emails are still branded as Twitter. I don’t actually use it any more but I do get so much spam through DMs that I’m considering deleting my account. I’m mostly holding it just so nobody squats on my username.
Oh yeah, they still own the twtimg domain and other scripts are downloaded from twitter.com. Looks like they gave it a superficial paint job to shut the big boy’s yap.
Still trying to wrap my head around how a partial ordering plays out here. I think it’s fair to say that for any such nonempty spectrum, there exists at least one person about whom it can be said: “nobody is gayer than they are.” Right? (even if 1 or more people are equally gay…)
Its the difference between maximum gayness and maximal gayness. Maximum gayness is being more gay, or at least as gay, as everybody else; while maximal gayness is not being less gay than anybody else (just as you put it). Two people with maximal gayness can have incomparable gaynessess, and thats the key thing about partial orderings, this possibility of incomparability. there could be many maximally gay people. they wouldnt be equally gay, but incomparably gay.
maximal gayness
Like Rattrap and Dinobot?
maximal
Dinobot
I hate you in so many ways right now.
As long as we can put an upper bound on gayness (or more specifically on each totally ordered subset of people under the is-gayer-than relation) this follows from Zorn’s lemma.
It’s also true by virtue of the fact that the set of all people who will have ever lived is finite, but “the existence of a maximal element in a poset” just screams Zorn’s lemma.
Sure, there may be a maximal element, but not necessarily a maximum (there might be multiple people of equal and maximal gayness, not just one person).
Also, not relevent to the logic here per se, but last time this went around the conclusion was that a spectrum implies a total order, not just partial.
I’m only familiar with “spectrum” from linear algebra (spectral theory), but I’m not sure that’s how people intend to use the word “spectrum” in this context haha.
I think it’s better to avoid the axiom of choice in discussions about sexuality, as it seems to upset the conservatives.
this follows from Zorn’s lemma.
Thanks, I’m gonna have to take a closer look at this later. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zorn’s_lemma
Talking about the amount of alternatives doesn’t specify how many elements are contained in an alternative.
Cum all over my tits, make me your alfredo dipped fucknugget
Sigh *unzips*
If anyone wanted explicitly sexual words, they have them now. You’re welcome.
thanks
That doesn’t sound very gay??
Most of my favorite women can ejaculate and several of my favorite men have tits. Phrased another way, genderfluid ungendered fluids.
All men have tits.
Unphrase unphrase.
Beastiality is a speculum? You do you, bra.
