u/IllIIlIIllII

French doesn't differ on English about inanimate vs animate though...

I'd use ça (or cela) in French if I'm talking about the action of an LLM; which in English would be "it". I wouldn't use "il" as you seem to do (based on your usage of "he").

(Just in case, I'm French too, and I know that "il" can be used in ways not describing animate things like "il faut/pleut/se peut" etc. but here it doesn't apply as a thing does exist to do the action)

Pour y être aller, y'avait grave plus que 20 000 personnes, beaucoup plus de monde que d'autres manifs qui était dite à ~20 000

Genre ça serait plutôt les chiffres pour l'après manif qui sont restés ça

Does proofgraph (https://ctan.org/pkg/proofgraph) solves your problem ?

Madoka ?

SCAC (Simplified Cursive Alphabet (for) Comfort) is a, guess what, simplified cursive alphabet made for comfort!

It's two very related system, the basic one which is meant to still make the outline readable with very little effort in learning the system (by making them similar to longhand general forms) The advanced one have some letters that do not ressemble longhand anymore (well, "n"), some letters for combinations (th, tr, ch, ng)

But both are writing each letters in an almost ambiguity free way (there still have some, ee = u (sometimes), lp = f, etc.) because I used this system mostly for notes when learning foreign languages (and thus couldn't use regular shorthand because of both wrong language and no context on how to read new vocabulary)

Which makes it possible to use almost any alphabet based shorthand on top of it (writing the letters in SCAC)

An explanation of the system: https://www.reddit.com/r/FastWriting/s/uv5eqbrklb

I get your point and I agree with direct proof being usually better; but on the technical side, your proof is not valid, real numbers do not have a unique decomposition into an infinite decimal expansion (exemple : 1.0000... and 0.9999...), and thus "c differ from n_i at digit i thus c =/= n_i" is wrong.

For example, take the rules: digit d will transform into d-1 unless it is 0 then it transforms into 9

And for f, f(0) = 1, f(n+1) = 0 Then the c you'll construct is 0.999... which being 1 is in your list.

Honestly a cool book, though I don't have it in print, only in a pdf.

Welp, in the unlikely case you live in the same country as me and not to far, that can be fixed c_c

"technically more moral" it depends on your moral framework, I too am not a fan of deontology, so let's say we are only arguing in consequentialist terms.

To say "this consequence is better than this other", it require to already be able to attribute value to situations, if the value is "more human more good" then obviously shrimp will lose.

Now if we are pure hedonists, I have no idea if shrimp have pleasure, so well I don't know how I'd engage with this...

Now I think you meant "if all lifes are equal, then it's better to save those shrimps", and I'll do some back and forth conclusion for why one is better than the other.

Case 1: 100000 > 1, so let's save shrimps

Case 2: but there are things dependent on those to live, in numbers, mostly microbes. Most microbes are in the gut, a shrimp is about 12g, average human 70kg, so here we are dealing with 171 times more shrimp mass than human mass, and I'd say we have more gut per kg than shrimp (by just looking at how they look) by about 40, so basically 4 times more shrimp gut mass than humans, so about 4 times more microbes so living things, let's save shrimps

Case 3: shrimps live 3 years average, we live 75 averages, so in total that human will have 6.6 times more living things during its life, let's save human Case 4: ok but what about biodiversity? Shrimps are essential for lots of other species, and so are humans (we are incredibly dominent), well there are more I think which are dependent on humans, let's save human, and if we count krills there are more shrimp so less likely to be extinct

Case 5: but humans are not that dumb and can fill holes in populations, our existence is way less "local", let's save shrimps

Case 6: humans polute more and that's killing way more long term than just a million shrimps, more microbes than what is made from humans, we're driving lots of species into extinction, let's kill all humans, starting by that random human we could have saved

Note that it doesn't necessarily reflect what I think should be done Also did it because I was bored

It's at least that, but not only, I do not know the other fields enough to tell though. I think Urs Schreiber (the only person understanding cohesive inf-topoi /j) use it for cohomology, in particular for *differential cohomology*, and it's a thing in string theory (a field of physics about quantum gravity).
In term of just topoi, yeah the intuitionist logic is nice, it allows for example to consider real numbers with infinitisemal (elements non zero such that the square is zero), which can be used for synthetic differential geometry.
But other than giving models of nice things, because you can translate sentences in the *internal* "set theory" given by the topos into an *external* statement of it, it allows to get theorems in classical set theory based on intuitionistic ones.
Higher Topos Theory already have quite the litterature and results, so I guess it's not really that much "hope" of expand on the success of sheaves anymore, just I am not aware of all of that, I may learn more about it later in my life though.

---

I ***highly*** doubt it'll be any use for functional programming languages, it can for proof assistant though (sortof FP lang but with dependent types)

For FP in term of category theory that are beyound monads, I'd recommend to look at catamorphisms, anamorphisms, hyliomorphisms (look at them as "recurion schemes" it's neat). And also I guess if you are implementing one, linear/affine logic (which I don't think can arise as the internal logic of a topos) to do optimisation with the question of boxing your elements, the rest of recommendations would be more computer science related...

(my interest is more on the logical side of it instead of the geometrical, I'm not an expert, I have never really done *inf-*topoi theory, but I can try to explain what I understood from previous knowledge and a bit of more research).

First: (inf, 1)-catgeories: (Jacob's ones, aka. quasi-category, iirc Riehl's cosmoi construction may not be the same)
informal: they are categories where instead of having equality between morphisms, you have morphisms of morphisms and equality is isomorphism of those, morphism of morphsim of morphism, etc. all respecting some coherence conditions, and morphisms higher than the base level need to be invertible (aka Hom(f, g) need to be a (inf, 0)-category, aka. a inf-groupoid).
formal, good for intuition, not for working with it: a inf-category is a category enriched over the category of compactly generated and weakly Hausdorff topological spaces, aka. for any object A,B, Hom(A, B) have the structure of a compactly generated weakly Hausdorff topological space (a subclass of topological spaces including lots of nicities like CW-complexes, but whilst admitting all small limit and colimit, cartesianly closed monoidal structure, and which forgetful functor to sets preserves limits).
The formal way that is more "useful" is via Simplicial sets, too long to describe here, the idea is that it's like simplicial description of (some) topological spaces, see at a site that Jacob Lurie created: https://kerodon.net/tag/0001

---

Example: Look at Top, the category which objects are topological spaces, and morphisms continuous maps, and for things higher, eg. for f, g : Hom(X, Y), Hom(f, g) is the homotopies between f and g. For h, k : Hom(f, g), Hom(h, k) are the homotopies between h and k.

This is the usual inf-category, you can also have one for X topological spaces, objects are elements of X, and Hom(x, y) are homotopies starting at x and ending at y over X.

Working with inf-category allows you to deal with this granulity of equality, and it's good for doing homotopy theory, and in fact you can do some sort of homotopy theory on inf-categories instead of on topological spaces (I have never done that though).

---

Now, (1-category) topoi, they are categories with (I'm listing some redundant stuffs as they can be useful) all finite products, finite sum, equalizer, initial object, final object, coequalizer, expodential objects, subobject classifier.

If you did some type theory, you'd realize that it is cartesian closed, thus under the Curry-Howard-Lambdek correspondence, you can create a typed lambda calculus on it (it's even better, instead of a propositional logic, it creates a predicate logic, propositional case would be for example Heyting algebras).

It have been invented because the categories of Sheaf (which formalize the idea between local properties and global object respecting them locally, used a lot in a lot of area of maths) are topos.

Now it's a bit more general than Sheafs, because it has all those properties, it captures quite well the property of the category of Set, but with its inner logic not necessarely being classical logic, but can be just intuitionist logic (when the subobject classifier """has more than 2 elements"""), the set theoric constructions:
• "subsets of a set verifying property P" given by the subobject classifier
• "products/sum of sets" by products and sum
• "set of functions and applying them" by expodential object
• "subset of S such that f(s) = g(s) on it" by equilizer
etc.

---

Now inf-topoi does the same, but instead of acting like Set (the prototype of 1-categories), it acts like Top (the prototype for inf-categories). It is currently conjectured (unless something happened and I am not aware of it) that the type theories given by the internal logic of inf-topoi are exactly the (extensions of) Homotopy of Type Theory, which itself is quite nice as being a way to do homotopy theory in a synthetic.

1-Topoi gives a nice way to find example of intuitionist set theories verifying (or not having) some properties (for example the topoi given by G-set does not verify countable choice), so maybe it is the same for inf-topoi : https://grossack.site/2025/06/04/an-empty-product-of-nonempty-sets

other exemple of topos theory to proove that intermediate value theorem is not proovable in intuitionist maths: https://grossack.site/2025/06/10/ivt-not-constructive
(I like her blogs)

Why stopping when arrested ? Follow your intrusive thoughts once in prison, it also make the getting dead part faster.

I am utterly disapointed in you and your whole lineage due to this blindness of philosophical thought.

In which sens is the continuum hypothesis not solved ? What's the work of Hugh Wooding in that?

I'm a layman in philosophy of maths but not of mathematics and mathematical logic, so you van assume I'd know the maths definition but not (whatever is philosophy of maths, I read a little on it but that's all)

From what I know, the continuum hypothesis is very much solved. "In ZFC, are there a set of size in between the one of N and the one of 2^N" (aka, "does aleph_1 = beth_1 (in ZFC)?").

(I'll freely assume that ZF is consistent, otherwise the question doesn't really make sense) We have that the L constructible hierarchy of universe (of ZF) is a model or ZFC + CH thus we have not (ZFC |- not(CH)). And with Cohen forcing proof, given a model M of ZFC+CH you can extend it to a model M' of ZFC+(not CH) (by adding a set which doesn't respect it, adding the necessary sets to still have the other axioms, then quotienting by a generic filter) And because there are a model of ZFC+CH, we thus have a model of ZFC+(not CH), and thus we have not (ZFC |- CH)

Thus the statement can neither be proven nor disproven (axioms of ZFC doesn't constrict what their model are enough for that); solving the question by a "ZFC doesn't provide enough information".

So is that person just saying things about that ? Asking more general questions (like, what are the implications of CH and not CH) ? Asking what the results are in stronger and weaker axiom sets ?

It isn't Duployé (there are a lot of combination here which are impossible and also can't make sense of it) It most likely isn't Aimé-Paris (seems like there are some shading in some place, but I can't read Aimé-Paris)

So I'd guess it is Prevost-Delaunay (which also makes sense given she's from the north)

I haven't done some Prevost-Delaunay in years (and it wasn't my main system) so I can't read it right now, but I should be able to give a (rough) transcription after looking up the system again, will in less than a week if nobody else do it beforehand.

Starts with "J'ai fait le tour de m'échanger (?) sur ces terres/terses"

I'm quite sure it's AI. The tree dust falling off the tree at the start is really off.

It's an oversimplification, even when it is a definite integral.

Take for example for function to integrate f from 0 to 1 with f(x) = 1 if x is rational and 0 otherwise

Now, if we try to do this loop with "bajilion" being a natural number it'll give 1 for integral. If bajilion is irrational, it will give something less than 1.

So the limit of bajilion to infinity if being in N won't be the same as if being in R. (First one converge to 1 and the second one doesn't converge) (We have that f isn't Riemann integrable)

But our intuition tell us that |Q| is much smaller than |R| (one is countable, the other is not), so the integral should be 0 Well that's actually the case if we consider instead of Lebesgue integral~measure (which as seen, isn't a loop of this form). (Lebesgue being the only measure on Borel sets (The opens of R but also their complement and countable union of them) invarient by translation and giving the correct result on constant functions)

And if you go deeper you can have "integrals" that are even weirder like Riemann-Stieljes Integrals Or take measures intead like integrating f on the dirac measure will give f(0).

You can learn the basics of all that in any course entitled "Measure and Integration"

Le chibre, le gland

And I'd say it doesn't fully count but; le bistourie, le tronc, le membre

Toute la commu de r/Ieatcement

Sksjdidjidnfidjfijfkdjdifkdojdifkdkzldkdlsk picture, pretty djdjkdjdikdodkdldsjdo

Hello

As a trans person, I'm also scared to date in the cis community :>

Mostly it's more likely for a cis person to be hurtful and not as trans supportive as they can claim to be.

But, it's not a no for me, t4t is amazing and the feeling of a shared community is beautiful, but lovely people still stay lovely people, cis or trans. I've dated people whom I thought at that time to be cis (they later transitionned :p) and well, it needs more work in comminication, sometimes you have to explain stuffs, but if the other person communication skills is not bad, that can work :3 Not being able to relate to gender dysphoria is ok, not "understanding" it, idk depends on what you mean by that, but if you find a lovely person that you'd date that happens to be trans, you can read on what it is and read experience of trans people online ! Don't let that stop you.

When writing curves I have to do a continuous force that isn't in the direction of the writing. Wereas a straight line I can give an initial motion and it continue without any strains.

The way you do them do change how they feel, I used to hold my pen quite strongly and move with my wrist (but then did a shit ton of dedicated practice until a easier way for my arm became muscle memory) Note though that not all curves and straight lines are the same, my classification : - diagonal up-right<->down-left: amazing - left<->right : bit less natural, forarm muscles used but they're strong - up<->down : less natural movement shoulder-wise and I also usually move the wrist for that, which get tireing, also up->down is much better than down->up - diagonal up-left<->down-right: aweful, weak forearm muscles, also going down is much easier than going up. When done with the wrist, same but all of them worst. And I'd class curve left->up as an equivalent of up->down

But now connecting them, it's some mix of how they are individually and how small the angle is, because for short angle I can start going the direction as soon as I want kinda but large angle I need to first stop the line to then move the right direction (the movement I do wouldn't cancel the momemtum and that makes it more tedious)

But in your letters you have a lot of circles (what I find more difficult than sharp angle but whatever), I find curves going the direction of the circle (like keeping clockwise or counter clockwise) easier than straight line around them, I think the resonale is that I need less precision because what I haven't finished in the closing of the circle to go to my point I just continue it in the curve. Also make the circles and ellipse and going to the exterior of the angle that the stroke outside do makes it easier (because I have to turn it less, and I found the other quite prone to deformation)

Circles going the wrong way though (circle going clockwise when curve after is counter clockwise) are just much more tireing, worst than making big angle curves junction imo, from afar that makes me think your system would be very straining (if used by me).

Also I'm not sure if your system is dyslexie friendly, I would guess not but I'm not an expert on that.

And do try SCAC ! Replace t by a bar that is high though, that should fix the t/l problem.

I'd be down to try your tests, I have some work to do so I'll not always be available quickly, but I'll respond eventually.

Neat !

There are some symbols that I can see to become another quite easily (2 and 15 for example)

For lefty vs righty, I think it'd be a good idea to make the system being writen vertically from top to bottom.

I started using shorthand for my day to day life because I couldn't do longhand the way other could (was really tireing, even painful at time, and I couldn't keep up with other speed while being legible) (now I am better in that regard but anyway, I think I see the need), and an amazing thing about shorthand is that even if it is not as tolerent, you need to do way less to write and thus you can take more of your time and I get less tired (because way less mouvement/redirections), so I am partially sceptic of most of your letter being so complicated (multiple circles).

When not in a hurry I do not personally have problems with some precision so I made my system SCAC which is a modified cursive that removes a lot of redirections of the latin alphabet (and worked with how I recognized words and where I want to put my hands when writing some combination of letters), but the system have too much of a similar stroke for T and L (though changing one would make for imo, quite a resilient system to "bad writing") (though I've been told that it'd be aweful for people with dyslexia).

Also my experience is that curves take more effort than straight lines, not all of them are equal though.