True nathematician would never make a mistake distinguishing finite and infinite cardinality. Countability, on the other hand… (but that’s a separate issue)

If only haskell devs were writing documentations, instead of going “type sigs is all the documentation you need!”

There is no good programming language, even including the ones people do not use.

I wish I were you, I struggle so much with reading books and papers

They do have antiderivatives, you just cannot elementarily compute them. Non-exact differential forms, however…

Seems like one can maybe work with complex metric. Interesting idea

I am sorry, but… to be pedantic, pythagorean theorem works on real-valued length. Complex numbers can be scalars, but one does not use it for length for some reason I forgor.

Not really if he also have mild autism

At least you are not actually inferior to others. That’s for me, I am ultimately inferior for real.

Dangit, is it like the game I just lost

It does not let me like the work I mildly dislike, right?

I thought this was taught in high school. Curriculums differ drastically between countries, don’t they?

Interesting, this was exactly my mindset on voting at age 10 or so. Guess some people never gets out of that phase?

I wish I can talk endlessly like that. Sometimes it feels as if I am nonverbal…

It was far long ago when I learned these stuff, but I recall that orbitals is more about probability to exist at certain points. So orbitals are more “diffuse” and “fuzzy”: there is a probability of an electron to exist 5m away from its nuclei, just the probability is astronomically low. Hence, there is no concept of concrete “touch” at this level.

Then there is “vector is one that transforms like vector”

Too technical of a meme

I thought everyone could pop the ears

It exists?

That sounds like 99.9% of population in developing countries like mine