But maximums are only guaranteed to be represented by a unique element in in total orderings.

Edit: also, infinite sets might not necessarily contain an element of their maximum value.

Find the local maximum by taking the derivative:

dgay
dt

The gay agenda's got axes now?

Turning the frogs gay and then giving them axes!!

If you limit the resolution of the gayness measurement, sure. You could define least gay as 0 and most gay as 5, then you have millions of people on 5. But there are infinitely many real numbers, and if there were some theoretical 100% accurate way to measure "gayness" (whatever that means) at "infinite resolution", the chance of two people being equally most gay is theoretically 0. On the other hand of the spectrum, it'd be impossible to be ENTIRELY not gay at all, so even if millions of people are very close to 0, one would be the closest.

I'm way overthinking this lol

Number theory suggests that by whatever metric it's determined, there's bound to be an infinitesimal difference between two measurements. Observation leads to significant figures, not reality

I think that could be possible. If sexuality were multi-dimensional and "gayness" was just a 1-D collapse of a higher dimensional space then you could pick a vector in the higher dimensional space to represent gayness, such that a few points at the extreme happen to have the same dot-product with that vector.

But then you would be defining gayness around the gymnastics of setting that up instead of something you are actually trying to estimate about people on that spectrum.

How is a spectrum supposed to not have a total ordering?

I'm pretty sure a spectrum is always totally ordered. You can't say "this point on the spectrum holds no relation to that point", because then it's not a spectrum.

It all comes down to definitions. First off, Totally Ordered is a property of the function that compares two elements not the set you are talking about. most sets have total orderings (if the axiom of choice is true then all sets have a total ordering). With Fields and vectorspaces there is the concept of a totally ordered Field which is essentially when the total ordering is compatible with it's field operations (e.g the set of complex numbers has many total orderings, but the field of complex numbers is not an ordered field).

So it really depends on how we define the sexuality spectrum. So long as it's simply a set then it has a total ordering. But if we allow us to add and multiply the gays then depending on how we define those functions it could be impossible to order the gay field.

Also a total ordering doesn't mean that there is exactly 1 maximal element (it would need to be a strict total ordering to have that property), so we can all be the gayest.

The color wheel, for instance

Do you not own any mirrors?

Lol, gottem

Hi, it's me.

Every large social platform has groups of people who hate each other, even lemmy. They just all have ways to keep only showing people the posts from groups they support (through defederation and only looking at specific communities, or twitter/youtube/tiktok/facebook's algorithms, etc)

There's 8 billion people. I'm pretty sure gay nazis exist.

plenty of gay furry artists around on that platform making lots of gay furry porn

Not comparable. There are finite gay people but infinite real numbers

The set of all living humans is finite, so (if sexuality is totally ordered) there is a gayest human. Edit:though they may not necessarily be unique.

What would gay Olympics look like? Like this?