sue them
just like every other time iāve seen positive numbers be defined ever
I had a prof who considered positive to include 0, and āstrictly positiveā to not include 0
2 Likes
theyāre wrong
1 Like
probably
or it could be a CS thing idk
things are really heating up in the minesweeper fandom
1 Like
i still think about the person who follows may and seems to have the consistent opinion that 0 is strictly negative
3 Likes
zero is a very selfish
what goes through their head. there was also exactly one answer to 0 and -0 being the same thing and +0 being ontologically different and iām like. 90% sure it was them
in abstract algebra thereās a concept called an ideal. which is a subring (smaller ring contained within the ring) where if you multiply anything in the ideal by anything in the ring in general you get back something in the ideal. it absorbs everything else under multiplication.
anyway iām saying this because i always thought āidealā was a mildly terrifying name for it. gives off the vibes of some sort of supremacist, or someone trying to create an āidealā world by removing/absorbing everything they donāt like. everything has to be like us. that kinda deal.
and this video reminded me of that
1 Like
one saging the day (if I recall correctly)
what do you get if you multiply 1 by 0
there is no happy ending. the trivial ideal containing exclusively 0 (or whatever the additive identity of your ring is) is the most horrifying ideal of all. the black hole of multilpication
nothing because one doesnāt fuck around with zero
A negative number times a positive number is a negative number. A negative number times a negative number is a positive number. Unless you count zero as either solely positive or solely negative. Then youāre fucked
1 Like
Zero is whatever I want it to be at the current time
2 Likes
I tend to like my zeros well done
2 Likes
silviuās yelling at me because i was asleep when they think i shouldnt be
on an unrelated note i am still tired
silviu hates naps