Comments by "B" (@user-pr6ed3ri2k) on "How to Add" video.

  1. i wanna try it myself but after hearing "clunky and inelegant" ...
    2
  2. im assuming we made a counting function earlier? ill just assume that counting is a valid function, which if it was, then count((a,0)U(b,1)) would work?
    2
  3. or as my original idea, only for numbers and not counting 2 sets, apply the S() function to y exactly x times, although i dont think it is mathematically reasonable using our current "blockz of knowledge" or smth so yeah
    2
  4. also edit to 2nd thing, should be count((aX1)U(bX0)) but i'm not sure if we invented cartesian product yet so idk
    2
  5. i think we didnt
    2
  6. *blocks
    2
  7. 5:37 ok i think "tagging" (I'll just call cartesian producting with another random element "tagging" to prevent axiom of foundation from ruining everything ({a,a}={a} is axiom of foundation?)) the elements of a, tagging the elements of b, and then unioning, and then finding the cardinality, should be the best approach.
    2
  8. also using tagging because i think a word similar to that was used in the previous videos when commit ordered pairs
    2
  9. 7:07 oh so unioning is literally the max() function wow didnt realize that earlier for some reason
    2
  10. 7:33 YES MY APPROACH IS CORRECT FINALLY wait no this is the incorrect method :(
    2
  11. 8:07 no.
    2
  12. 8:13 my ideal degnite???
    2
  13. 9:01 finally someone else who uses "threeven" oh wait nvm
    2
  14. 9:19 adding 0 doesn't change the number... unioning already does that (max(x,0) where x>0 = x obviously) but idk
    2
  15. 9:33 n+1 = S(n)
    2
  16. 10:33 adding is literally recursion like how we defined the numbers again....
    2
  17. 11:03 wait, there's a way to explicitly write down the predecessor function at all? also just noticed that you even wrote that on your board wait let me try this
    2
  18. hmm, P({x, {x}}) = x... therefore... uh...
    2
  19. i... dont think theres a way to even write this down???
    2
  20. oh frick this is just basic function composition idk how to express it notationally but literally just apply S(x) to x exactly y times again -_-
    1
  21. 9:55 why?
    1
  22. ...i'll just continue watching.
    1
  23. 11:12 ohhhh ok...
    1
  24. 11:23 wait a weird trick???
    1
  25. 11:52 P(k+1)=k...?
    1
  26. 12:32 because fone lag oh so S(n)+k = n+k+1?
    1
  27. 12:42 nvm no its S(k) waht what oh N * n+S(k)=S(n+k) this is obvious, no?
    1
  28. oh now we have to freaking commit recursion on the whole (N_>0)^2 plane -_-
    1
  29. 14:08 you're still using n operations, which has the same problem as the |X| cardinality thing approach.
    1
  30. 15:48 nung mathematicians oh inductive reasoning not the same???
    1
  31. 17:03 WHAT HOW (had to repost bcz slow internet, also the weird addition approach still isn't good, it's just hiding P(x) using S(x) but you still need to use P(x) anyways because how are you going to find the number y such that S(y)=2 when solving things like 2+2 (which is equal to S(2+P(2)) but you cant easily find P(x) anyways so yh))
    1
  32. 20:27 oh triangle numbers ...
    1
  33. 20:48 makes sense
    1
  34. the detective approach sounds much better imo
    1
  35. *deductive
    1
  36. 21:31 this videos boeing.(what) imma stop watching. i wonder what other videos are good to watch while travelling on a bus?
    1