Still got some time left in the 10% coupon code for the Dumbing of Age/Shortpacked! store! Just input code BOTCON13 during checkout and you save that 10% off any order of anything.
Given her proclivity for standing on hinged side of doorways, I half expected Dina to come out from the other stall rather than through the front door, but that’s me. 🙂
See, she’s doing it in completely the wrong way. While health class was “useful” and all, she should have learned about sex the way I did: from cable TV and older kids on the playground.
I don’t believe in -ism’s. “-Ism’s in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, “I don’t believe in Beatles, I just believe in me.” Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus. I’d still have to bum rides off people. “
The universe is infinite in size. Since not all the available space is taken up with people, the number of people is less than infinite.
And any number divided by infinity is effectively zero. So reality is 0% people, and thus people do not exist.
And therefore, any people you meet are merely the product of your diseased imagination.
Anonymous
Unfortunately, {all integers} and {all even integers} have the same (infinite) magnitude, since they can be mapped one-to-one (or so I’m told).
|
[See the ‘hotel with infiinte rooms’ thought experiment, in which a hotel with infinite full rooms can house infinitely more people by just moving the occupant of each room N to room 2*N first, thus freeing up infinitely many odd-numbered rooms for the new infinite number of people.]
Just as even integers can be infinite despite there being integers which aren’t even, the number of people can be infinite despite there being volumes without people.
That’s only a valid approach if the universe is in fact infinite, though. Ah, but that can then be sidestepped with the possibility of an infinite /number/ of universes/realities, regarding the many worlds eisenvalues thing. (And, of course, that if one came into existence then chances are it’s not the only one, with no known upper limit. One person, one ‘sun’ (star), one planet, one universe… this is incidentally a relatively strong argument against absolute monotheism. If one god were in fact able to come out of nowhere, infinitely many others would too by exactly the same means.)
Rognik
No, I believe you just entered a fallacy about mathematics. From what I learned, and I freely admit I know very little about it, there are different degrees of infinity. The subset of {all integers} is twice as large as {all even integers} because {all integers} can be defined as the union of the subsets {all even integers} and {all odd integers} (which, for the record, are of roughly equal size. Thus, the set of {all integers} is twice as infinite as the subsets {all even integers}. And let’s not even start on the comparisons of {all integers} to {all fractions between 0 and 1}.
tl;dr? Infinity comes in many sizes. Get your extra small infinity today!
Infinity does come in different sizes, but the cardinality of the whole numbers is the same as the cardinality of the even numbers is the same as the cardinality of the integers is the same as the cardinality of the real numbers is the same as the cardinality of the set of all prime numbers is the same as the cardinality of the set of all rational numbers. All of those sets are countably infinite. This is the smallest infinity, aleph naught.
Now, where different infinities enters this is that the cardinality of the set of all real numbers is not the same as the cardinality of the set of the rational numbers. The set of all real numbers is uncountably infinite. There is a hypothesis that the cardinality of the set of real numbers is 2^(aleph naught), but that’s still an open question.
Rachel
I JUST learned this today! Such a wonderful idea. Just a few weeks ago I had the funny idea that 1/3, rather than half of numbers, are odd, because even + even = even, odd + odd = even, and only even + odd = odd, and I love how cardinality addresses this idea perfectly.
Shay Guy
There’s no such thing as “twice as infinite.”
If you can take two sets and match every element in either set with an element in the other, they’re the same size. If one of those sets is the natural numbers, that basically means you can make an infinite list with the other set that has every element on there somewhere. The prime numbers, for instance: “2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13…” The average gap between them grows arbitrarily large as you go down the list, but every prime number is on there somewhere, so it’s a “countably infinite set,” meaning that like the natural numbers, it has cardinality “aleph-null,” which is the smallest infinite cardinal number.
Something like the set of all real numbers, though, or the set of all sets of natural numbers? It can pretty easily be proven that no matter how you generate a list, there will be some elements that won’t be on it. Take the latter, which I consider the proof to be more straightforward for: If the first entry in your list has the number 1, my set doesn’t, and vice versa. Same for your second entry and the number 2, your third and the number 3, ad infinitum. No matter what your list is like, my set isn’t on it. That means the reals and the power set of the naturals are uncountably infinite. And we’re not talking two-times-aleph-null — we’re talking two-to-the-power-of-aleph-null, because that’s how power sets roll.
You wanna get really weird? It’s been proven that using standard set theory, you can’t prove or disprove the continuum hypothesis, which says that there are no sets larger than the naturals and smaller than the reals. I have no idea how those proofs work.
Rachel
Would that be different then that the proof that the reals are infinite? I can do that one in my sleep 🙂
Because a proof that the reals are infinite would seem rather simple.
Axel
tl;dr of the other replies to this one:
There are different sizes of infinity! But the set of all integers and the set of all even integers are still the same size of infinity.
Yes, the number of people in the universe can be infinite, and the universe can be infinite and still have approximately no life in the universe. If you approximated the percentage of rational numbers in the real number line from (0,1), you’d find that it quickly approached 0%.
It depends on the consistency of the sad. I think she might even be able to leave the bathroom without washing her hands, and not have to worry about germs, either.
…except I would probably cry for weeks afterwards. If OotS teamed up with Willis, no one would be able to foresee the emotional havoc that would be wrought.
On this note, should somebody mention to Dorothy that being an open atheist is probably going to put a somewhat bigger wrench in her presidential ambitions than having sex with her boyfriend?
168 thoughts on “Hug”
Aras Pabedinskas
Aww.
Sensedog
This calls for a collective “D’AAAAAAAAAWWWWW”, doesn’t it?
Geegles
One, two, three…
NCP19
D’AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWW, did I start too early?
Undrave
D’AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWW!
Now kiss!
pizza2004
Galasso as your Gravatar makes it look more like you’re issuing a battle cry.
Undrave
YOU WILL KISS FOR THE GLORY OF GALASSO!!!
Cooledd
ALL HAIL GALASSO!
Felix Kütt
In the name of Mighty Galasso, thy will be done!
Thisguy
All of these gravatars are accurate.
Tylertlat
D’AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWW!
Rognik
Don’t worry. Dina already ruined the moment.
Plasma Mongoose
You calling Dina a twat-blocker? 😛
Goat
I believe the term is ‘twat-swatter’. I can’t recall where I heard it, but it is, in fact, a thing.
Mal
I think Dane Cook used it in a comedy routine.
Totz the Plaid
Dane Cook inventing it automatically invalidates it.
bobjohnsonandthediglets
clamjammer
That guy
D’AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWW
Wonder Wig
That’s Dina’s hat talking. It’s telepathic powers have finally broken into her mind.
Yotomoe
Her and the hat have truly bonded.
NCP19
So it’s just like The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap, talking hats, eh wot?
Chatokun
Like the student president in ?
Chatokun
Bah, I always get that link thing wrong…
Ryorin
…I will never view weird hats with faces the same way again.
ShadowWing Tronix
More like Headmaster from Transformers Animated.
Yotomoe
Bathroom bonding is the best bonding.
Gordon Blvd
ha hah aha ha a haha ha!!!!! +1
vanjealous
Given her proclivity for standing on hinged side of doorways, I half expected Dina to come out from the other stall rather than through the front door, but that’s me. 🙂
Plasma Mongoose
Silly Dina, you cannot bond properly without a glue-gun, everyone knows that. 😛
Will
At least she’s not trying to do it with an ARC welder.
Plasma Mongoose
I fully agree, using an arc welder without the right welding mask is just asking for eye-damage.
LS
Crap, if Dina overheard that sneeze story she’s probably gonna end up really confused about ‘adult stuff.’
Leorale
Dina strikes me as the sort of person who tries to learn about sex from a textbook and maybe nature documentaries.
Yotomoe
She follows the mating patterns of dinosaurs, obviously. No male has done the low pitched mating call so she has not heeded it.
Icalasari
…Crap I learned about sex in that way…
Plasma Mongoose
I used to have the Joy of Sex book when I was a teenager, complete with drawn characters sporting 70s hair and mustaches, the the dean confiscated it.
Rognik
See, she’s doing it in completely the wrong way. While health class was “useful” and all, she should have learned about sex the way I did: from cable TV and older kids on the playground.
Plasma Mongoose
Older kids taught you about sex? Tht sounds kinda criminal somehow.
Anickel4u
Not quite, i mean… we all got our first sex notions from playground gossip.
Roborat
You had sex with older kids on the playground? Kinky.
Rognik
You should’ve seen what my health class was like.
Leorale
I d’awwed!
And I felt spot-on with Dorothy in this one: I don’t believe in God but I do believe in people. Yay.
Yotomoe
I don’t believe in people. They’re actually a myth.
Cholma
I don’t believe in -ism’s. “-Ism’s in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, “I don’t believe in Beatles, I just believe in me.” Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus. I’d still have to bum rides off people. “
Plasma Mongoose
Is that a Ferris quote?
Cholma
Yes. Yes it is. 🙂
Jacob
But according to Glass Onion, the walrus was Paul
Doctor_Who
Douglas Adams had a good theorem on this one.
The universe is infinite in size. Since not all the available space is taken up with people, the number of people is less than infinite.
And any number divided by infinity is effectively zero. So reality is 0% people, and thus people do not exist.
And therefore, any people you meet are merely the product of your diseased imagination.
Anonymous
Unfortunately, {all integers} and {all even integers} have the same (infinite) magnitude, since they can be mapped one-to-one (or so I’m told).
|
[See the ‘hotel with infiinte rooms’ thought experiment, in which a hotel with infinite full rooms can house infinitely more people by just moving the occupant of each room N to room 2*N first, thus freeing up infinitely many odd-numbered rooms for the new infinite number of people.]
Just as even integers can be infinite despite there being integers which aren’t even, the number of people can be infinite despite there being volumes without people.
That’s only a valid approach if the universe is in fact infinite, though. Ah, but that can then be sidestepped with the possibility of an infinite /number/ of universes/realities, regarding the many worlds eisenvalues thing. (And, of course, that if one came into existence then chances are it’s not the only one, with no known upper limit. One person, one ‘sun’ (star), one planet, one universe… this is incidentally a relatively strong argument against absolute monotheism. If one god were in fact able to come out of nowhere, infinitely many others would too by exactly the same means.)
Rognik
No, I believe you just entered a fallacy about mathematics. From what I learned, and I freely admit I know very little about it, there are different degrees of infinity. The subset of {all integers} is twice as large as {all even integers} because {all integers} can be defined as the union of the subsets {all even integers} and {all odd integers} (which, for the record, are of roughly equal size. Thus, the set of {all integers} is twice as infinite as the subsets {all even integers}. And let’s not even start on the comparisons of {all integers} to {all fractions between 0 and 1}.
tl;dr? Infinity comes in many sizes. Get your extra small infinity today!
Baroncognito
Infinity does come in different sizes, but the cardinality of the whole numbers is the same as the cardinality of the even numbers is the same as the cardinality of the integers is the same as the cardinality of the real numbers is the same as the cardinality of the set of all prime numbers is the same as the cardinality of the set of all rational numbers. All of those sets are countably infinite. This is the smallest infinity, aleph naught.
Now, where different infinities enters this is that the cardinality of the set of all real numbers is not the same as the cardinality of the set of the rational numbers. The set of all real numbers is uncountably infinite. There is a hypothesis that the cardinality of the set of real numbers is 2^(aleph naught), but that’s still an open question.
Rachel
I JUST learned this today! Such a wonderful idea. Just a few weeks ago I had the funny idea that 1/3, rather than half of numbers, are odd, because even + even = even, odd + odd = even, and only even + odd = odd, and I love how cardinality addresses this idea perfectly.
Shay Guy
There’s no such thing as “twice as infinite.”
If you can take two sets and match every element in either set with an element in the other, they’re the same size. If one of those sets is the natural numbers, that basically means you can make an infinite list with the other set that has every element on there somewhere. The prime numbers, for instance: “2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13…” The average gap between them grows arbitrarily large as you go down the list, but every prime number is on there somewhere, so it’s a “countably infinite set,” meaning that like the natural numbers, it has cardinality “aleph-null,” which is the smallest infinite cardinal number.
Something like the set of all real numbers, though, or the set of all sets of natural numbers? It can pretty easily be proven that no matter how you generate a list, there will be some elements that won’t be on it. Take the latter, which I consider the proof to be more straightforward for: If the first entry in your list has the number 1, my set doesn’t, and vice versa. Same for your second entry and the number 2, your third and the number 3, ad infinitum. No matter what your list is like, my set isn’t on it. That means the reals and the power set of the naturals are uncountably infinite. And we’re not talking two-times-aleph-null — we’re talking two-to-the-power-of-aleph-null, because that’s how power sets roll.
You wanna get really weird? It’s been proven that using standard set theory, you can’t prove or disprove the continuum hypothesis, which says that there are no sets larger than the naturals and smaller than the reals. I have no idea how those proofs work.
Rachel
Would that be different then that the proof that the reals are infinite? I can do that one in my sleep 🙂
Baroncognito
Do you mean Cantor’s diagonal argument?
Because a proof that the reals are infinite would seem rather simple.
Axel
tl;dr of the other replies to this one:
There are different sizes of infinity! But the set of all integers and the set of all even integers are still the same size of infinity.
Baroncognito
Yes, the number of people in the universe can be infinite, and the universe can be infinite and still have approximately no life in the universe. If you approximated the percentage of rational numbers in the real number line from (0,1), you’d find that it quickly approached 0%.
Rognik
You don’t believe in me? NOOO! *disappears in a puff of smoke*
alicemacher
*Sniff sniff* I’m getting a little farklempt. Bless you, Willis.
Sporky
Has Dina ever smiled like that before in DoA? A first!
Yotomoe
Naw, I think she has.
David Herbert
Come on girls, let Dina in on that hug
Count Dracula
I didn’t hear a flush. Joyce, you are just making life terrible for the next person to go in there.
timemonkey
I didn’t think you needed to flush for sad.
Rognik
It depends on the consistency of the sad. I think she might even be able to leave the bathroom without washing her hands, and not have to worry about germs, either.
Doctor_Who
Dina reminds me of me in this one. I’ve actually been known to quote Elan from Order of the Stick when I’m around others: “I’m participating!”
Ryorin
Now THERE’S a crossover that needs to happen!
…except I would probably cry for weeks afterwards. If OotS teamed up with Willis, no one would be able to foresee the emotional havoc that would be wrought.
Plasma Mongoose
I might be interesting to see the DoA drawn OotS style and vice-versa.
gc
On this note, should somebody mention to Dorothy that being an open atheist is probably going to put a somewhat bigger wrench in her presidential ambitions than having sex with her boyfriend?
David
She is ACUTELY aware, because she’s not an imbecile.
Yotomoe
She’s a cute. and aware.
Rognik
I’m sorry, but that deserves an appreciative groan. Well played, and yet, curse you, Perry the Platypus!