Image not available

1209x1119

ty07ewujdp0d1.png

๐Ÿงต Untitled Thread

Anonymous No. 16178273

.

Anonymous No. 16178279

>>16178273
it's not base 1 though.

Anonymous No. 16178287

>>16178273
I hate how zoomers have decided that simple rationality is cringe/midwit/soi. Fuck this generation

Anonymous No. 16178302

>>16178273
it's not base 1 but it is a true statement if you interpret the context to be concatenation with strings of decimal digits (this would be the natural interpretation in the context of formal languages)

Image not available

557x550

images - 2023-12-....jpg

Cult of Passion No. 16178309

>>16178287
>I hate how kids wear their hats wrong. Its a purpose built device, not a fashion accesory!
I fucking hate Gen-X.

Anonymous No. 16178324

>>16178287
Theyre a nigger generation

Anonymous No. 16178348

>>16178273
Base 1? The 145 IQ one should be also on the left side kek

Anonymous No. 16178349

>>16178273
the real midwit is the one who posts memes like this. I was considering these wuestions (dereferencing pointers, and so on) before the age of 7.
t. 160iq

Image not available

280x280

1550184890365.jpg

Cult of Passion No. 16178487

>>16178349
>t. 160iq
Whatchya work on?

Anonymous No. 16178608

>>16178279
1 is certainly the base here. Now it's true that in the usual base-n notation we use the numbers 0 through n-1 as digits, but that's not the only choice we can make. For example, using 1 through n has the nice property that there's exactly one way to write any positive integer. Another notable choice is -(n-1) through n-1; this one is useful for expressing various calculation tricks (such as the trick for multiplying by 9) and also makes arithmetic with infinite radix-point numbers nice (of course this only works well when n >= 2). For base 1 the most common choice of digits is {1} since {0} is obviously useless. This person is using a digit set that at the very least includes {1,2,3,4,5,6}.

Anonymous No. 16179383

>>16178608
>This person is using a digit set that at the very least includes {1,2,3,4,5,6}.
Which means its not base-1, its at least base-6 if there are six unique symbols representing different values.

Anonymous No. 16179619

>>16179383
Not necessarily. Having a set of digits larger than the base is possible; it just means (assuming your base is a positive integer and your digits are integers) that there will be some numbers that can be represented in multiple equivalent ways. Having a set of digits smaller than your base is a bigger problem, since it guarantees (under the same assumptions as before, and also assuming we're not using a radix point) that some positive integers will not be representable.

Anonymous No. 16179651

>>16178273
it's not base 1 you doofus, it's either base exp(2i pi/3), exp(-2i pi/3), -1 + i sqrt(2) or -1 - i sqrt(2)

Anonymous No. 16179664

>>16179619
What are some examples of actual mathematical bases that are anything like you describe?
And don't just try to make up more bullshit on the spot, I mean cite something that has ever actually been used the way you describe.

Anonymous No. 16179678

>>16179383
It's me from >>16178279
I see your point.

Image not available

577x604

eH4IKhaO6e8.jpg

Anonymous No. 16179705

>>16178273
But they're all wrong.

Anonymous No. 16179721

>>16179664
You were already given perfectly good examples, but if you insist on seeing other people using such systems here are a bunch of links you could have found yourself by searching for "signed digits":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redundant_binary_representation
https://gentzen.wordpress.com/2019/04/16/theory-and-practice-of-signed-digit-representations/
https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/downloads/k35694421
https://redirect.cs.umbc.edu/~phatak/publications/hsdtrc.pdf
https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.15702
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7154949/

Anonymous No. 16180807

>>16178309
>I hate how kids wear their hats wrong
Yes. It's done by nigs because they have low IQ and don't understand how objects work. The newer generation is shit, cry about it more.

Image not available

1920x1080

Duttons dysgenic ....jpg

Anonymous No. 16180824

>>16178287
not my problem

Anonymous No. 16180825

>>16178273
Not base 1. Anyone attempting to justify it saying "umm ackchually" belongs firmly at the peak

Anonymous No. 16180852

>>16180825
um actually it works because I say it does and there's no reason it can't work like that

Anonymous No. 16180977

>>16179664
Greek numerals

Image not available

600x377

images (10) (27).jpg

Cult of Passion No. 16181003

>>16179664
>make up more bullshit on the spot
lol

"Train? No."

Anonymous No. 16181014

>>16178487
Not him. I have a psychologist tested IQ of 160 and I work on nothing worthwhile. I subsist trading time for money. Operative word, subsist. Enough to survive. As such my mind is racked and taxed with making economizing decisions. It can never be put to any good use for myself. I regret ever learning anything at all.

Anonymous No. 16181092

>>16180824
pre-dark age is the most fun time to be alive, because new and old superstitions appear, the skill to understand complex machines and the tools to build them becomes arcane and esoteric, and random violence begins to become the norm as all institutions become corrupt and the law of the jungle returns. magic re-enters the world, and this is a good thing.

Image not available

1080x2448

Screenshot_202405....jpg

Cult of Passion No. 16181130

>>16181014
All you had to do was use you autism to focus on a hobby until you were such an expert you tell the creators of it how it should have been made.

My job is my hobby...I never work...I subsist on little so I can fund my hobby and my job.

Image not available

1277x951

Screenshot_202405....jpg

Cult of Passion No. 16181132

>>16181014
Even if its something stupid like a video game or some shit, getting "proficient" at something helps with mental health by telling your subconscious you actual place in the world.

>As such my mind is racked and taxed with making economizing
Because this is whats important right now...you need something more important than "now".

Anonymous No. 16181148

>>16178287
>simple rationality is cringe/midwit/soi
It really is though.
The low end can be right for the wrong reasons.
The high end can be right for the right reasons.
The middle is wrong for the right reasons (herd mentality).

Only the tails will produce new patterns. The middle just safely copies/reproduces the status quo.

Cult of Passion No. 16181158

>>16181148
Its literally juat metaphysical interpretations of energy exchanges no different that Thermoeconomics professor or a Many-Moons Sage Witchress (penised).

All is One.

Cult of Passion No. 16181161

>>16181158
>or a Many-Moons Sage Witchress (penised)
>or
Now you know why those people are running the Uni-Versity.

Meta-Physics only works with Empath-y or Aspergers++ people, Autism gets BTFO'd by it, normies are lost in its hyper vague-ness.

So fucking abstract to have almost completely contradictory definitions operating simultaneously.

Anonymous No. 16181208

>>16178273
fucking javascript, I swear to christ

Image not available

675x499

1716050117030.jpg

Anonymous No. 16181668

.

Anonymous No. 16181703

>>16178273
Base 1 is just tickmarks:
1
11
111
1111
11111
111111
Etc