#binary notation

[allalfavincerho]

conta fino a 10

I counted to ten slowly, using binary notation. R. Heinlein, The Door into Summer

[keithbutgay]

"i know now"

"is my son safe"

"i cannot see him, he is blind"

"i have to tell ford"

[cathodic-clairvoyant]

Anytime I see a dumb order of operations argument online i get one step closer to finishing my machine that takes us to the reverse polish notation dimension so i may finally have some relief

[allwehearisradiosilence]

A note I found in my annotations of radio silence 2 years ago:

Chapter: Awkward

“We don’t talk about the connections between the neurodivergent coding of Frances and Aled and their relations to masking, dissociation and appealing to different people with moulding. Fauna”

[nolinno-art]

I've developed mathematics for a non-human mind, for my comic "The book written by tiny paws"

Sapient distant descendants of rats, known as packers, living on Earth millions of years after the extinction of humans, began to develop mathematics using cognitive mechanisms never intended for such tasks. Due to an evolutionary quirk, multiplication came more naturally to them than addition, and their mathematics reflects this.

Packers write numbers as shapes, with each number having a corresponding number of corners.

And they write large numbers as nested shapes. The number inside is multiplied by the number outside.

Examples of some numbers:

Packers haven't invented 0 yet. They haven't even invented 1! In fact, they don’t need the concept of "one" much in their system. There's no need to say "I ate one fish" when they can simply say "I ate fish".

Packers can't yet write large prime numbers, like 101 or 10,501, because they would have to draw a huge shape to represent them! Even writing 17 or 19 would be quite difficult if they only used convex shapes.

So packers use non-convex shapes too!

Many years later, some packer noticed that large prime numbers look suspiciously symmetric.

So this packer improved the notation system and made it clearer.

Later, another packer simplified this system even more, deciding that there was no point in writing the same shapes twice.

This packer was the first in their culture to declare that "a dot isolated from a number" should also be considered a number. The packer called this dot "the wonderful number that's less than two".

Many years later, another packer made an important innovation: the "dot isolation" could be repeated multiple times as long as the result remained odd. When the result became even, it could undergo a "two isolation" (division by two). The final result will be a series of dots and twos.

This invention led to the creation of a binary system based on one and two, which had a significant impact on the technological advancement of packers.

The comic "the book written by tiny paws" talks about all of this in more detail. There will be mistakes, debates, the invention of rational, irrational, multivariate numbers, and some other stuff. Some stuff will be very much like human math, and some will be different. After all, math is still math, only the point of view has changed.

[nerdygaymormon]

I liked your post with all the scriptures showing that we are to love trans people. What are your thoughts about the changes made to the church handbook?

The LDS Church used to ban gay students from attending BYU. The church used to put a permanent notation on gay member's records and forbid them from having callings that work with children or youth. The church used to promote conversion therapy even when every major medical and mental health organization denounced such practices. The church forbade the children of gay couples from getting baptized.

Eventually the church reversed all these positions.

I used to speak up behind closed doors for queer youth to get to participate, it's been many years since my local leaders tried to do something like forbid a lesbian from attending girls camp or want her to be isolated at night in a cabin separated from the rest of the young women.

It is sad to me to see these same mistakes being implemented against trans/nb/genderfluid/gender nonconforming/intersex members.

Gay people were not predators, we were not the danger they imagined us to be. The same is true for those whose gender doesn't conform to the imagined binary.

How does preventing an 8-year-old child from getting baptized fit with Jesus' admonition to "suffer the little children and forbid them not to come unto me"?

How does limiting someone from gender-specific classes and callings fit with the apostle Paul's teaching that in Christ we are one, that "there is neither male nor female"?

Why is forbidding a trans youth from spending the night at FSY acceptable? It will be so stigmatizing.

We're really going to police the restrooms? Even me, an openly gay man, I am allowed to use the facilities with men even though I might be attracted to some of them.

This ban on "social transitioning" (meaning name/pronouns/grooming/clothing) continues the false notion that appearance equals worthiness and is in direct contradiction to God telling the prophet Samuel that "the Lord looketh on the heart." Social norms are not eternal norms and shouldn't determine whether an individual can receive gospel ordinances.

The top LDS leaders prefer the term "same sex attraction" instead of gay, lesbian and bisexual, and I think a similar thing is now happening as the Handbook language has shifted from "transgender individuals" to "individuals who identify as transgender" and "individuals who transition away from their biological sex."

None of these policies are required by doctrine, evidence for this is these restrictions didn't exist 5 years ago or even last week.

It's depressing the church doesn't remember the lessons from its treatment of gay people as it replicates similar policies.

It was already hard to be a gender diverse member of the LDS Church, and it just got more difficult. Everyone should have access to a spiritual home and church community if they want it.

While I can't control what the LDS Church does, I want you to know I embrace and support you. I wish I could sit on the pew with all of you and I wish I had a table large enough to break bread with all of you.

[librarycards]

do you have any recommendations for readings or memoirs or anything about non-binary identity?

yes! so, I feel obligated to share a few that I've done ––

Co/notations, an annotated essay chapbook.

Social Skills: A transdyke autie-biography in Sinister Wisdom

In Praise of -Less in AZE Journal

Others' Memoirs/Poetics:

Stacey Waite, Love Poem to Androgyny

Vivek Shraya, She of the Mountains

Akwaeke Emezi, Dear Senthuran

Eli Clare, Exile and Pride

Ivan E. Coyote, Tomboy Survival Guide

Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha, Dirty River

T. Fleischmann, Time is the Thing A Body Moves Through

Sabrina Imbler, Dyke [geology]

Joan Nestle, ed., Genderqueer: Voices From Beyond the Sexual Binary [warning: this is pretty old]

Fiction [beyond Stone Butch Blues]:

Megan Milks, Margaret and the Mystery of the Missing Body

Sassafras Lowry, Roving Pack

John Elizabeth Stintzi, Vanishing Monuments

-

These are obviously not all of the gender-noncompliant/nonbinary/genderqueer/etc books I've read, nor all of the ones I recommend, but they do apply directly to your specification that they be about identity as such. Hope you find something you like!

[hbmmaster]

I've been using and thinking about this for a while, but what do you think of the programmatic notation '0s' for seximal?

I mean this as it relates to '0x' for hex, '0b' for binary and '0' for octal.

('0h' for Heximal also works, but it WILL get confused with hexidecimal)

You may be disappointed to learn that there currently exist no programming languages with seximal numbers.

it's a nice idea but I'd rather a programming language use a more robust system that can accommodate arbitrary bases than just add in more single-letter codes for my favorites you know

[klavierpanda]

🌻 :3

I will tell you& about a cool topology fact that uses one of my favourite theorems!

First, a primer of finitely presented groups:

Given a finite set with n elements S={a₁,...,aₙ}, we define a word to be a finite concatenation of elements in S. For example, a₁a₇aₙ is a word. We define the empty word e to be the word containing no elements of S. We also define the formal inverse of the element aᵢ in S, written aᵢ⁻¹, to be the word such that aᵢaᵢ⁻¹=e=aᵢ⁻¹aᵢ, for all 1≤i≤n.

We define the set ⟨S⟩ to be the collection of all words generated by elements of S and their formal inverses. If we consider concatenation to be a binary operation on ⟨S⟩, then we have made a group. This is the free group generated by S, and is called the free group generated by n elements.

Some notation: if a word contains multiple of the same element consecutively, then we use exponents as short hand. For example, the word babbcb⁻¹ is shortened to bab²cb⁻¹.

Note: concatenation is not commutative. So ab and ba are different words!

We now define a relation on the set ⟨S⟩ to be a particular equality that we want to be true. For example, if we wanted to make the elements a and b commute, we include the relation ab=ba. This is equivalent to aba⁻¹b⁻¹=e. In fact, any relation can be written as some word equal to the empty word. In this way, we can view a relation as a word in ⟨S⟩. So we collect any relations on ⟨S⟩ in the set R.

Finally, we define the group ⟨S|R⟩ to be the group of words generated by S subject to the relations in R. This is called a group presentation. An example is ⟨z,z²⟩, which is isomorphic to the integers modulo 2 with addition ℤ/2.

If both S and R are finite, we say that ⟨S|R⟩ is a finite group presentation. If a group G is isomorphic to a finite group presentation we say G is a finitely presented group. It is worth noting that group presentation is by no means unique so as long as there is one finite group presentation of G, we are good.

In general, determining whether two group presentations is really really hard. There is no general algorithm for doing so.

Lots of very familiar groups of finitely presented. Every finite group is finitely presented. The addative group of integers is finitely presented (this is actually just the free group generated by one element).

Now for the cool topology fact:

Given a finitely presented group G, there exists a topological space X such that the fundamental group of X is isomorphic to G, i.e. π₁(X)≅G. This result is proved using van Kampen's Theorem which tells you what happens to the fundamental group when you glue two spaces together.

The proof involves first constructing a space whose fundamental group is the free group of n elements, which is done inductively by gluing n loops together at a single shared basepoint. Each loop represents one of the generators. Then words are represented by (homotopy classes of) loops in the space. Then we use van Kampen's Theorem to add a relation to the fundamental group by gluing a disc to the space identifying the boundary of the disc to the loop in the space that represents the word for the relation we want. We do this until we have added all of the relations we want to get G.

We can do a somewhat similar process to show that any finitely presented group is the fundamental group of some 4-manifold (a space that locally looks like 4-dimensional Euclidean space, the same way a sphere locally looks like a plane). This means that determining whether two 4-manifolds are homeomorphic or not using their fundamental groups is really hard in general because distinguishing finitely generated groups is hard in general.

P.s. I also want to tell you that you're really wonderful :3 <2

[tower-of-hana]

Trying to explain why the hull-hall merger happens

So I have this weird merger where I round [ʌ] to [ɔ] before [l]. This would be depicted in binary notation like this [-cons] > [+ round] /_[+lat], which makes no sense because where the fuck is the rounding coming from. So I looked it up and it turns out that [ɫ] sometimes becomes labialized and this happened in English. But in English the /w/ was inserted before the [ɫ] and I've noticed that I tend to replace [ʌ] with [ɔʷ] so maybe what's happening is [ʌɫ] > [ʌʷɫ] > [ɔ(ʷ)l] which would make more sense because /w/ can actually cause rounding.

[daisychainsandbowties]

three body problem ❤-💛-💙 -> LB Lilith-Ava-Bea, always in orbit of each other

i can’t get over it sometimes that those are the colours of their lightsabers but anyway time for a shameless excerpt from my favourite thing i’ve ever written 😌😌 written, in part, because i knew that luminous beings would be dark, plagued by scatterings of light and little else, but i wanted to make it plain as daylight on this tiny planet that there is always peace in the end

orbital mechanics

///

the ceiling in their bedroom has a domed viewport that shows the stars, and beatrice watches a bright spot in the impossible distance and remembers what they told her about star nurseries, and what lilith called the three-body problem.

lilith, staring out of the viewport, the abyss of space reflected in her dark eyes.

stars have violent birthplaces. a cloud of dust collapses so completely that it forms a hydrostatic core. a point that draws heat towards itself, growing denser and denser, helplessly eating up everything around it. and then, eventually, it forms a star.

sometimes several stars. they form together.

with her red marker ava drew three circles, colouring them in with a loud squeaking sound that made lilith close her eyes momentarily and sigh.

where three stars become gravitationally bound – caught, shall we say, in one another’s pull – we call them a trapezia. like this one.

the Mantis sat on the edge of the system, where it was safe.

young, by the standard of stars, and incredibly unstable. prone to ejecting parts of itself at high velocities. a trapezia is an example of a three-body problem.

ava laughed.

this problem attempts to predict the motion of three bodies, taking their initial conditions to solve for their subsequent motion.

at this point, ava’s red marker began drawing with proper notation. nothing beatrice could read. just letters to the power of numbers. radical signs and brackets and factoring. some subtraction.

the problem with this problem is that the orbits of three massive bodies quickly become complicated. they seldom repeat their trajectories – after all they are pulling at each other at different times in different places, moving along strange orbits. they compete for the stability of their want without forming a proper hierarchy, as many other systems must. they just careen, wildly, through their space.

it is possible for these stars to collide. it is possible for these stars to be ejected from their system. binary orbits are far simpler, far safer.

there is an inevitability to the three-body problem. lilith said this strangely, and beatrice reached out to take her hand. a violence and a beauty and a tragedy to them. three bodies do not easily exist in this way. or, perhaps it is easy for them. perhaps it is wonderful, and free in its unpredictability, but it is probably doomed.

what could survive against all the laws of physics?

[the-least-undefinable-ordinal]

I'm taking a logic course aimed at computer scientists and it's ironic (read: funny if it wasn't happening to me) how badly formulated the test questions are.

There are true or false type of questions (with no room to explain, unlike in courses for mathematicians!) that also allow "imprecise" as an answer when the question is badly formulated.

The thing is, you have no way of checking which is the correct answer, a quick definition: a 3-tuple (L,s,i) is called a Lattice if (paraphrasing a bit here) s and i are the binary operations of taking the supremum and infimum on L for some partial ordering <= on L.

So there was this statement and we have to figure out if it's true, false or imprecise: "Let (L,s,i) be a lattice, then i <= s".

Of course in a test where you can justify your answers there is no problem here, you just explain why the question is fucking stupid (with nicer phrasing) and you move on; except this test is taken on a computer and you have no such option.

So it is sort of true in the sense that given x and y it always holds that x i y <= x s y; it is imprecise in the sense that you could define if a function is smaller than another in different, incompatible ways; it could also be false if you take the notation i <= s to mean (i,s) belongs to the set <=.

So it really comes down to luck in figuring out which answer the teacher likes the best.

[dogin8]

Post where I explain what Non Binary means to "It's just the third gender" people by using maths notation

our sets:

B (for Binary)

NB (for Non-Binary)

B = {0,1} which means, the set B is made up of the numbers 1 and 0

now some people think NB = {0.5} or NB = {2} but neither of these are wholly true

NB = {C U R\B} which means, the set NB is made up of every Complex number And every Real number (these two together means basically: every possible value in maths) EXCEPT for numbers in set B

So that means, NB includes EVERYTHING other than 1 and 0. which means 0.5 is included, and 2 is included, but so is 0.9 and 500000 and -π and 12i and e. Non-Binary doesn't refer to one specific gender, it refers to Everything outside of and between the binary which is literally infinite values.

If you wanted to be REAL thorough as well you could say

NB = {C U R/B, (C U R, C U R), (C U R, C U R, C U R), (C U R, C U R, C U R, C U R) (then continue filling brackets with an increasing number of C U R to infinit)}

which means that NB is everything outside the binary AND any pair of two numbers, any group of three numbers, any group of four numbers etc to infinity. This is the best way I could think to display people who identify with multiple genders at once through math notation.

But, my favourite thing about all this is that if you want to be a real math nerd about stuff, you could start just saying "\B" cause that's the most basic form of notation for "Not in set B" "Not in Binary" "Non-binary"

[echotunes]

me wh. me when i write -69 in binary as a two's complement and then convert it to hexadecimal notation

[meltingheaven27]

(I forgot the Title)

I made this for my final assignment on Gender and Islamic Studies in 8th semester.

At first, i really want to draw or paint about the dilemma of Hijab and how is it presented in our society. The idea for this installation came to me on Pusat Studi Jepang (PSJ) or to be exact at the Library of PSJ. Temperature of the room at that time, i think almost hit 19 Celcius with 2 AIR CONDITIONER and only 2 PEOPLE in the room, which now i can imagine how Dante's Inferno said that the Hell is cold (or maybe he's not experienced heatwave in South East Asia). I am not able to move my body freely because basically i'm freezing to death (hyperbole), but really, it is really cold (with its second place, BENS Coffee). To think that i am not able to draw because my body freeze, i'm thinking something else for the final assignment, which is this installation born. I want to press my budget because while writing my undergraduate thesis, i eat so much, the stress expressed themself and find soothing in foods. The budget i have for the art is Rp. 25.000, at very least. That is very low. Then i have to putar otak and adapt while showing something visually pleasing.

I got something on mind and it's a performance art at very first. I want to perform. After a long thoughts-after-thoughts, i cancel my plan to performed. It is because i am very very tired lately with my lacks of sleep and lots of readings for my thesis (also writing). Also how i look like a dead fish because of that. AND how i really want to apply something physical material to it. I got ideas. How about taking photos a sequence of mine exploring Hijab as a 'clothing'. After the idea came, i also thought that i could print it in Cano for not more than Rp. 10.000 budget (affordable, right!?). Without any idea how should i apply that to the exhibition hall, i stayed with what i think, and that's how this installation was born.

The idea behind this art basically about how society perceive Hijab on our daily life. Every women, at very least, experienced to "close" themself with Hijab, or the women with hijab experienced to "open" their Hijab. It is all basically center around how society want women to be, the maintain to see hijab as a mere social tool to oppress women. I think, Hijab is really more than that, even, more than just a woven of threads to cover our hair. In elementary, junior, or senior public school in Indonesia, there's a lot of compulsion to their students that is Muslim to use Hijab (even though they are not using it) and charges to whom not using it. To a bigger landscape, women in general, is expected to cover themself, "for the safety and purity". But are they? According to many data that collects story from the victim of Sexual Harassment, there's more to women that use longer clothing (long shirt, use Hijab, and Chador).

It is different to the notation to "open". In many western interpretation, Hijab is perceived as 'not free'. It is true at some point, IF they ARE forced to used it and experience intimidation from it, like many of the case, i do agree. But, i do not agree also, because how they are also coming to Women that consciously want to use Hijab to learn their faith or maybe just as a fashion, it is not our business. There are also other case about "open". There's a time i express myself that i engage in a lot of erotic art or sexual things. There is someone really said to me "why do you use your Hijab?", that is basically weird to me, honestly, because i want to? what else (note: i am privileged to say this). Or at some of the case, "why you did XXX you better to take of your Hijab!" is very common to find in social media and/or real life.

That is why i summarize it into this binary language of "Open" and "Close", and find that it is all rooted to how society wanted HOW women to act, they don't want to, and it is all reduced to Hijab.