#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"

[againwiththeturtles]

The quarter rest is my best friend. I see him on the sheet music and I smile fondly and caress his cheek

[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.

[narcissistcookbook]

GENDERING TEDDY - a story about the evolution of mathematics, blood-stained chickens and a childhood toy that wasn't a girl or a boy

LYRICS:

The Babylonians developed the first written numerical system, in 3400BC Their system was base 60, which we still use today for telling time, but for everything else we ditched it in favour of The base 10 system, which the Egyptians came up with a few hundred years later And this was rounded out by a notation for zero courtesy of the Mayans a couple hundred years after that Giving us the numbers 0 through 9, upon which is built our entire modern mathematical architecture

Now Before this, It's not like humans didn't have a concept of numbers Any more than we didn't have a concept of time before clocks were invented We've understood natural numbers since before recorded history It's easy to understand that if you have 1 chicken and your neighbour has 2, they have more chickens than you It's just as easy to show someone that 1 plus 2 equals 3 Because we can see our chicken And we can see their two chickens And then, as if by magic, now we have three blood-stained chickens This is simple and observable mathematics And we didn't need language to make sense of this Beyond this, though, things get abstract and theoretical real fast I'm not even talking astrophysics here, Just getting into numbers larger than 60 or 100 poses serious problems in a world where you don't often have 60 or 100 of anything And inevitably somewhere adrift in the abyss of history is the first human who faced the challenge of trying to describe the concept of one million to a poor friend who was, understandably, less interested in a number with no practical application than they were in society's state of the art advances in avoiding being eaten by a fucking lion But in this one person's brain was an idea Of a number bigger than anyone had counted Something that they knew was real That they knew was out there But which they couldn't hold up and show anyone Which they couldn't even clearly explain Because the language hadn't been developed yet And if, as has been theorised, our species' intelligence is intimately tied to our capacity for language Then an abstract concept without a word attached to it Might as well not exist

When I was born, I was given a teddybear That I called Teddy, because some days you just phone it in And I took Teddy with me everywhere One day, when I was around four My mum and I were getting ready to go out And mum asked "Where's Teddy" And I said "Upstairs" And mum said "Go and get him then, we're leaving" And I remember being jarred by this It was an unfamiliar, visceral feeling Powerful enough for me to still be processing it, way, way in the background, thirty years later I said "Teddy's not a him" And mum said "Oh. Her then." Hmm No That's still not right, I though "Teddy's not a her either," I said, struggling to find a word for what I knew Teddy was A word that I felt must exist, because on a purely conceptual level I could imagine it And because my experience thus far had been to point at something and ask what it is And be told it was a table, or a chair, or a deactivated exploder for a mark ten torpedo I just assumed, naturally, that in my four long years on the planet I had yet to come across the word for when something doesn't quite fit Into the boy box Or the girl box Now, I know Teddy was (Is, actually, I still have them, they are sitting in the next room as I record this) Teddy is just clumps of fluff stuffed into a furry bag There isn't any objective truth to be found as to whether Teddy is a girl or a boy Or something else But that's not the point The point is This is one of my earliest memories This, not skinning my knee or losing my mum in the supermarket, is what has stuck with me When I was four years old, Before I had had any exposure to anyone beyond the gender binary In real life or in books or on the tv Before I even had a concept of what it might mean Socially and politically Gendering Teddy felt like it went against something tangible that apparently only I could see

And this is why I have so little patience for people who smirk and say we don't need new words to describe gender The reason That these people constantly belittle and undermine the words trans and non-binary people use to describe themselves and the world around them Is not because the words are meaningless It's because these people know fine well that words are powerful and dangerous And they know that their last hope of stalling progress is preventing people from having access to language that validates and vindicates their lived experience Not to mention that frankly fucking ludicrous idea that new words somehow erase their identity rather than give them a deeper understanding of it And the notion that it is somehow unnatural to invent new words for things, as if that hasn't been one of the leading preoccupations of humanity for the past 6000 years at least We are trying to do something that cannot be accomplished without a new language Without it, the concepts that make up vital parts of our identities are formless and amorphous Without it it becomes impossible to build support networks and communities Or to be taken seriously when your rights are being violated Or to tell the people you love who you actually are Or even to recognise yourself in the fucking mirror

That lonely, early human who struggled to explain the concept of a million If they could, maybe they would have said You're right, we don't need a formal numerical system to know that one plus two equals three But we will need one to build a worldwide communication network To point telescopes into the darkest parts of space And to plunge with no regard for our own safety into the deepest parts of the sea Maybe some of you think it is unnecessary even dangerous to be coming up with new words like this, and in the process validating things you don't believe in Things you can't see But for me, I can't see it as anything except progress New words are new tools Which can be used to build a marginally better world right now And maybe Many thousands of years in the future These new tools that we drop and break and wield clumsily will be used in ways we can't even conceive of today To build miraculous, unimaginable structures With our distant descendants Standing atop of them Being the people we always wanted to be

[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"