688
IT'S A TRAP (mander.xyz)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] sniggleboots@europe.pub 6 points 2 days ago

There are more reals than naturals, they do not match up 1 to 1, for exactly the reason you mentioned. Maybe you misread the meme?

[-] Fleur_@aussie.zone 1 points 2 days ago

By assigning a person to a decimal value and implying that every decimal has an assigned person the meme is essentially counting all the decimals. This is impossible, the decimals are an uncountable infinity. It's like saying. Would you rather the number of people the trolley hits to be 7 or be dog.

What the meme has done is define the decimals to be a countable infinity bigger than another countable infinity. They're both the same infinity.

[-] stevedice@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago

Yeah, but if you can line up the elements of a set as shown in the bottom track, then they're, at most, aleph 0.

[-] enbipanic 3 points 2 days ago

I don't think we should take the visuals of the hypothetical shit post literally.

If they say there's one guy for every real number, let them

[-] sniggleboots@europe.pub 2 points 2 days ago

Ah I see why they worded it the way they did. I would argue that's just the limitation of the illustration, considering the text words the premise correctly, but fair!

[-] Fleur_@aussie.zone 1 points 2 days ago

One person for every decimal isn't possible even with infinite people. That is the point I'm making.

[-] sniggleboots@europe.pub 2 points 2 days ago

Neither is assigning a person to every natural number, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make?

[-] Fleur_@aussie.zone 1 points 2 days ago

But you actually can assign a unique person to every number, you just need an infinite number of people. You literally mathematically can't do that for uncountable infinities.

[-] saimen@feddit.org 1 points 1 day ago

Really? Isn't the point that when you assign a natural number to every real number you can always generate a "new" real number you haven't "counted" yet, meaning the set of real numbers is larger which is also is the point of the image.

[-] Fleur_@aussie.zone 1 points 1 day ago

No, thats not what I mean and that's not the case. Even though there are infinite natural numbers, you can count them all. More accurately you can define a process that eventually will count them all. This is entirely different from decimal numbers which there is no process you can define that will exhaust all decimals. In this way the decimals are uncountable.

When talking about infinities this makes the infinity that contains all decimals larger than the infinity that contains only whole numbers.

My disagreement with the meme is that assigning an individual to each decimal is essentially a process of counting and this is a fundamental contradiction. As such the comparison to the set of natural numbers is nonsensical and the implication that there are less people assigned to the smaller infinity is incoherent.

[-] saimen@feddit.org 2 points 2 days ago

It's just an illustration... how else would you draw it?

[-] Fleur_@aussie.zone 1 points 2 days ago

My argument applies to the text of the post too. You literally can't assign people (count) the decimals.

[-] stevedice@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago
this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2025
688 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

16949 readers
2107 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