this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2025
1087 points (95.7% liked)

Science Memes

16374 readers
3126 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] homura1650@lemmy.world 5 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I was going to make a comment about surreal numbers not being numbers. But I did a bit of fact checking and it looks like all of the values I was objecting to are not considered surreal numbers, but rather pseudo numbers.

I find this outrageous. Why can't ↑ be a number? What even is a number that would exclude it and leave in all of your so-called numbers?

[–] Inucune@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)
[–] homura1650@lemmy.world 1 points 33 minutes ago

Where in those axioms does it say that ↑ = {0|∗} = {0 | {0|0} } is not a number? No where, that's where!

The actual reason that ↑ is simply that it is too ill behaved. The stuff I thought were the "numbers" of combinatorical game are actually just called Conway games. Conway numbers are defined very almost identically to Conway games, but with an added constraint that makes them a much better behaved subset of Conway games.

I suppose you could call this an axiom of combinatorical game theory; but at that point you are essentially just calling every definition an axiom.