|
|
Facts
Nov 11, 2021 19:00:33 GMT
via mobile
Post by Kliment JefremovitΕ‘ VoroΕ‘ilov on Nov 11, 2021 19:00:33 GMT
Erich von Manstein was the best general of WWII on either side and I will die on that hill.Β Georgiy Ε½ukov |
|
|
|
Facts
Nov 11, 2021 19:02:48 GMT
Post by Darth Nihilus on Nov 11, 2021 19:02:48 GMT
there isnβt too much difference SugarSugarSugarSugarSugarSugarSugarSugar |
|
|
|
Post by ππ³π°π΅π΄π¬πΊ on Nov 12, 2021 0:01:29 GMT
ΒΏ Fact: Fax is older than telephone. |
|
|
|
Post by Manfred von Richthofen on Nov 12, 2021 0:17:02 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ΙͺΚΚΚα΄κ±α΄ Ιͺα΄Κ α΄ α΄Ι΄ α΄ΙͺΙ΄α΄’Κα΄ΚΙ΄ on Nov 12, 2021 1:19:08 GMT
At over 2,000 kilometers long, The Great Barrier Reef is the largest living structure on Earth
|
|
|
|
Post by Hobo Joe on Nov 12, 2021 1:35:11 GMT
At over 3000 tons, yo momma is the largest living organism on Earth
Zing
|
|
|
|
Facts
Nov 12, 2021 1:40:20 GMT
Post by Thortilla on Nov 12, 2021 1:40:20 GMT
You can't go faster than the speed of light (I think I've already put this but I'm lazy looking for them)
|
|
|
|
Post by Captain on Nov 12, 2021 4:30:56 GMT
(1+1=2) ππWhat a fact Math major kicking in here. 1+1=2 is actually false in some cases, depending on what field you're using. If the field is R, as in, all real numbers (which is just the number system all of us use), then this is accurate. However, if your field is restricted, then that's not true. A field needs to have additive and multiplicative closure, which sounds complicated, but it basically means whatever numbers in the field you use, if you add or multiply them your answer has to be another number in the field. If your field consists of only the numbers 0 and 1, then 1+1 can't equal 2 cause 2 isn't in the field. But 1+1 can't equal 1 either cause that would create a conflict with 1+0. So in this field 1+1=0. Yeah that's good fact Again, 1+1 can be represented in many ways- 1+1=10(in binary) 1+1=1(in Boolean algebra) --(Looking for more systems)-- |
|
|
|
Post by ππ³π°π΅π΄π¬πΊ on Nov 12, 2021 10:56:08 GMT
Math major kicking in here. 1+1=2 is actually false in some cases, depending on what field you're using. If the field is R, as in, all real numbers (which is just the number system all of us use), then this is accurate. However, if your field is restricted, then that's not true. A field needs to have additive and multiplicative closure, which sounds complicated, but it basically means whatever numbers in the field you use, if you add or multiply them your answer has to be another number in the field. If your field consists of only the numbers 0 and 1, then 1+1 can't equal 2 cause 2 isn't in the field. But 1+1 can't equal 1 either cause that would create a conflict with 1+0. So in this field 1+1=0. Yeah that's good fact Again, 1+1 can be represented in many ways- 1+1=10(in binary) 1+1=1(in Boolean algebra) --(Looking for more systems)-- Nice additions, binary was my first idea too, but for a boolean AND you must write 1β§1 not 1+1 - even if you may say the same word in english, it is written different. For this reason it is better to say 1 plus 1 instead of 1 and 1.For the fields I doubt, that this can be correct. Imo: If a field is limited and needs to have additive and multiplicative closure, the field can have only one member 0 - all other fields fail the closure condition for (reverse) addition: If A + A = C and A β B and then must be A + B β C Maybe in biology or chemistry we find more systems, John Marston ? |
|
|
|
Post by Darth Nihilus on Nov 12, 2021 14:02:00 GMT
Nice additions, binary was my first idea too, but for a boolean AND you must write 1β§1 not 1+1 - even if you may say the same word in english, it is written different. For this reason it is better to say 1 plus 1 instead of 1 and 1.For the fields I doubt, that this can be correct. Imo: If a field is limited and needs to have additive and multiplicative closure, the field can have only one member 0 - all other fields fail the closure condition for (reverse) addition: If A + A = C and A β B and then must be A + B β C Maybe in biology or chemistry we find more systems, John Marston ? Yeah, good point. I think there's a lot of systems where 1+1!=2 because of certain conditions. As for fields, the simplest field that has closure is just one number. For a field of {0,1}, if we define the additive inverse of 1 to be... 1, then it satisfies additive closure. It's really weird and completely breaks normal math, but that's what defines F 2. Here's an explanation I found online:https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1000381/why-is-11-0-in-a-finite-field-f-0-1 |
|
|
|
Facts
Nov 12, 2021 17:52:44 GMT
Post by Thortilla on Nov 12, 2021 17:52:44 GMT
La Grande y FelicΓsima Armada (Great and Most Fortunate Navy) It was never called The Invincible Armada. That name was given by the English themselves
|
|
|
|
Facts
Nov 12, 2021 22:49:49 GMT
Post by ΙͺΚΚΚα΄κ±α΄ Ιͺα΄Κ α΄ α΄Ι΄ α΄ΙͺΙ΄α΄’Κα΄ΚΙ΄ on Nov 12, 2021 22:49:49 GMT
There are more LEGO mini-figures in existence than actual people on earth.
|
|
|
|
Facts
Nov 12, 2021 23:10:22 GMT
Post by Thortilla on Nov 12, 2021 23:10:22 GMT
There are more LEGO mini-figures in existence than actual people on earth.
Only 58 million Mexicans are productive for the country |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Nov 13, 2021 12:47:35 GMT
(1+1=2) ππWhat a fact Math major kicking in here. 1+1=2 is actually false in some cases, depending on what field you're using. If the field is R, as in, all real numbers (which is just the number system all of us use), then this is accurate. However, if your field is restricted, then that's not true. A field needs to have additive and multiplicative closure, which sounds complicated, but it basically means whatever numbers in the field you use, if you add or multiply them your answer has to be another number in the field. If your field consists of only the numbers 0 and 1, then 1+1 can't equal 2 cause 2 isn't in the field. But 1+1 can't equal 1 either cause that would create a conflict with 1+0. So in this field 1+1=0. Basically, Sets...right? |
|
|
|
Facts
Nov 13, 2021 12:52:16 GMT
Post by John Marston on Nov 13, 2021 12:52:16 GMT
Yeah that's good fact Again, 1+1 can be represented in many ways- 1+1=10(in binary) 1+1=1(in Boolean algebra) --(Looking for more systems)-- Nice additions, binary was my first idea too, but for a boolean AND you must write 1β§1 not 1+1 - even if you may say the same word in english, it is written different. For this reason it is better to say 1 plus 1 instead of 1 and 1.For the fields I doubt, that this can be correct. Imo: If a field is limited and needs to have additive and multiplicative closure, the field can have only one member 0 - all other fields fail the closure condition for (reverse) addition: If A + A = C and A β B and then must be A + B β C Maybe in biology or chemistry we find more systems, John Marston ? Nah...as far as I can recall, I can't remember any of them other than binary or Boolean |
|
