Comments by "lars from mars" (@larsfrommars) on "Another Roof" channel.

a. nobody asked lmao this is a video about set theory pls stfu b. someone who expresses a consistent and persistent desire to be regarded as a woman in society; if you want to define it w reference to sex, a person who largely wants to be treated as a typical member of the female sex wants to be treated; referred to w female pronouns for example. in most contexts if someone tells me they're a woman i have no reason to disbelieve them c. nobody asked lmao this is a video about set theory pls stfu
2
loving these videos, you're a really great presenter. other people have commented but i'd also like a video on types of reasoning :D
2
this is an insane comment we defined mathematical objects the way they are because it was useful we aren't literally duplicating things we're just constructing theoretical structures based on rules we explicate
1
haha he said later that he messed up the color grading it's the first yt video he's ever made
1
he literally shows in the video how addition works i don't understand lol
1
@wesbaumguardner8829 addition doesn't have to mean that the union of 2 and 3 is literally 5 and he discusses exactly the point you make in the video. if you think introducing new and useful math concepts is "sophistry" you're doing something wrong
1
@wesbaumguardner8829 you're talking about the union of sets when you say "addition", which is already defined as something different
1
@wesbaumguardner8829 the sets aren't completely irrelevant because what we're trying to do is define addition in terms of sets
1
@wesbaumguardner8829 i have genuinely no idea what the hell you're talking about. set theory is a major development in modern mathematics and it's cool to be able to build addition and multiplication from a few simple, definable rules applied to these abstract objects with no seeming initial relation. it should follow the same logic as arithmetic always has because that's what arithmetic is, it's not circular at all, it's defining things in new and interesting ways. it doesn't break down because the whole point was to be able to have numbers and justify arithmetic with them based on sets. i don't think you understand the point of math or why it's generally done
1
@wesbaumguardner8829 building complex structures from simple and clear initial rules is the whole point of doing pure math
1
@wesbaumguardner8829 and this has nothing to do with your initial criticism, which was that somehow he fails to define addition at all
1
@wesbaumguardner8829 i literally gave you the equations for unions and addition, as you asked for earlier. they're different things, as i've already explained, and he explained how to do addition in the video with repeated successors. it doesn't work by just putting everything in 2 and 3 together. pure math has nothing to do with your day-to-day or your toes, and clearly you're just incurious about it in general. that's fine, but admit it. set theory isn't redundant because the point of studying sets is to learn more about sets and how they work. look up a wikipedia page, there's so much more to them than is presented here.
1
@wesbaumguardner8829 it sounds like you just don't like or care to understand math, because it's all abstraction that we try to learn more about.
1
@wesbaumguardner8829 this is such a broad topic that you're speaking with absolute authority on even though you only heard about it an hour ago
1
@wesbaumguardner8829 YOU LITERALLY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT SET THEORY IS OR WHAT IT'S USED FOR. YOU'RE LISTING OFF RANDOM OBJECTS IN A SET AS THOUGH IT PROVES A POINT. IDK ADD THEM TOGETHER IF YOU WANT TO KNOW HOW MANY THINGS TOTAL THERE ARE THIS IS JUST A JUSTIFICATION FOR HOW WE ADD THEM
1
@wesbaumguardner8829 you haven't presented any real errors with the definition i can't imagine hating just math in general to the degree that you apparently do. numbers exist because we write them down and think about them and think they're useful constructs and would like to know more about them
1
@wesbaumguardner8829 have you professionally studied it at all? i'm sure another roof has and can speak about it with more authority than you. mathematical objects do have real meaning because we decide precisely what rules govern them. numbers will never be "real things" in the way you think that word should be used because that's just not a thing they can be, and not something this video aims to do
1
@wesbaumguardner8829 lmao he's probably sleeping or working or touching grass or some shit this is a dumb conversation gnight
1
@wesbaumguardner8829 i wrote the fucking equations you're not making any goddamn sense union: {{Ø}, Ø} u {{{Ø}, Ø}, {Ø}, Ø} = {{{Ø}, Ø}, {Ø}, Ø} addition: {{Ø}, Ø} + {{{Ø}, Ø}, {Ø}, Ø} = S(S(S({{Ø}, Ø}) = {{{{{Ø}, Ø}, {Ø}, Ø}, {{Ø}, Ø}, {Ø}, Ø}, {{{Ø}, Ø}, {Ø}, Ø}, {{Ø}, Ø}, {Ø}, Ø}
1
@wesbaumguardner8829 i think my comments just aren't showing up for you but i really don't care about this anymore. i'll capitalize 'i' however i please
1
@wesbaumguardner8829 lmao "aprobos" in a comment making fun of my grammar is too good. people happen to use language in a way that isn't strictly formal and that's fine. the way we should use words isn't dictated by strunk and white
1