#binomial

[ziggyisonzaza]

Binomi

I will keep making more halloween entries HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA-

[arco-pluris]

Crítica do binômio “sexo/gênero”

Texto de Caia Coelho (2016)

Ao contrário do que se costuma pensar, criticar o binômio “sexo/gênero” não é abandonar o reconhecimento do genital como algo importante para a designação cis-normativa, para o controle da reprodução e para a produção da heterossexualidade diádica. Na verdade, é necessário considerar tais elementos para estabelecer uma crítica ao conhecimento biológico dessa parte do corpo, que obviamente não foi escolhida aleatoriamente e antecipa o gênero da sua própria historicidade, passando a ser considerado natural não só enquanto figuração anatômica, mas enquanto o eixo discursivo do cis-sexismo. Isso toma uma proporção tão grande que pessoas intersexo recém-nascidas sofrem, compulsoriamente, cirurgias para adequar a genitália a vaginas e pênis, uma prática violenta contra os Direitos Humanos.

Istvan Mesaros, em o Poder da Ideologia, revela como a ciência, com seus próprios critérios, procura invalidar a legitimidade da crítica: “aqueles que aceitam tacitamente a ideologia dominante como a estrutura objetiva do discurso ‘racional’ e ‘erudito’ rejeitam como ilegítimas todas as tentativas de identificar as suposições ocultas e valores implícitos com que está comprometida a ordem dominante. Assim, em nome da “objetividade” e da “ciência”, têm de desqualificar o uso de algumas categorias essenciais ao pensamento crítico. Reconhecer a legitimidade de tais categorias significaria consentir no exame das próprias suposições aceitas como verdadeiras, em conjunto com as conclusões convenientes que podem ser – e efetivamente são – extraídas dela”.

Se reconhecemos o “sexo” enquanto uma forma de saber sobre o corpo historicamente permeada e politicamente intencionada, torna-se de muito apoio que os conhecimentos biológicos mostrem uma diversidade que extrapole certas barreiras, divergências e contradições da própria literatura biomédica a respeito dos genitais. Quando se desautoriza o entendimento “oficial do sexo”, ou melhor, quando se desautoriza tal entendimento no campo da própria biologia, isso transpõe algumas barreiras entre as áreas interessadas em pesquisar o gênero e as áreas interessadas em pesquisar o corpo. Nessa altura, também acontece um hibridismo maior na biomedicina que, ao encarar outras possibilidades anatômicas além da diádica, nos permite pensar por que até então apenas dois ‘sexos’ estavam sendo estudados.

Criticar o binômio “sexo/gênero” significa a tentativa de perceber as entrelinhas do discurso; perceber o que não foi dito, mas constitui o discurso; perceber a ideologia na “objetividade científica” e a permeabilidade dela na história. Para todas as populações trans, transexuais, transgêneros e travestis, o principal efeito do “sexo” enquanto natural e do gênero enquanto “construído” é que, para o corpo cis-gênero, haveria “harmonia” entre esses dois eixos de sustentação do corpo e, para nós, haveria o destino psiquiátrico da patologia, quando não o destino estigmatizante da simulação.

A primeira, e imatura, definição de “cis-generidade” registrada historicamente (1995) é feita por Carl Bujis, um homem trans, e quatro anos depois é descrita por Donna Lynn Mathews, uma mulher transexual, como o significante que assinala a compatibilidade entre a identidade, a apresentação e a morfologia física de alguém: “uma vez que definimos o gênero como as características comportamentais, culturais e psicológicas associadas a um sexo, cisgênero significa estar do mesmo lado das características comportamentais, culturais e psicológicas associadas a um sexo”.

Em sua genealogia da cisgêneridade, “O Cisgênero Existe”, Leila Dumaresq contextualiza historicamente e analisa a evolução do conceito. A respeito de Carl Bujis e Donna Lynn Lewis, a autora relembra que essa definição foi escrita “no século onde as pessoas trans impuseram-se como grupo social e político; E também é o século marcado pela patologização e um crescente interesse médico em nós. As marcas deste conflito aparecem na exigência de laudos e procedimentos médicos para termos a existência civil e jurídica reconhecida. Naquele momento ainda fazia sentido usar o jargão biomédico que trouxe alguma aceitação social e que definia o trans para definir o cis. Ingenuamente, as pessoas trans quiseram expressar alteridade nos mesmos termos usados para nos descrever. Logo ficou evidente que isso não era possível e que o jogo biomédico não foi feito para permitir a expressão trans”.

Dessa forma, a não ser que você esteja disputando o conceito de sexo dentro do departamento de biologia ou medicina, ou seja, apontando incoerências da própria bibliografia, não adianta usar outras palavras, como se elas fossem mais ou menos isentas ideologicamente, pois pertencem ao mesmo vocabulário biomédico. A definição desses termos está comprometida com o diadismo e com o cis-sexismo. Por isso, dizer que “XY” é biológico e a associação disso ao universo masculino é “social”, embora tenha bastante potencial didático, é apenas eufemístico. Para não virar um problema linguístico, a nossa crítica precisa desautorizar a pretensa “universalidade” da ciência; precisa falar desses termos como garantias da cis-normatividade e da heterossexualidade, do diadismo e do controle reprodutivo; precisa localizar a utilidade e o controle desses conceitos; precisa saber que, realmente, o conhecimento sobre o corpo não é o corpo em si.

[blake447]

So here's an interesting fact I've learned while researching these things called Wolstenholme Primes. See they're related to the binomial coefficient and thus pascals triangle. We've probably all seen sierpinski's triangle in here (if not circle all the odd numbers). But here's something else interesting. If you look at the triangle, you'll see that for prime numbers, every element is divisible by that prime number. Look at 11 for example.

55, 165, 330, and 462 are all divisible by 11. This has to do with the binomial coefficient definition, in which you'll see that if unless we choose either all the elements, or none of them, the factor of our prime number is guaranteed not to cancel out from the numerator's factorial.

We can then use the fact that the sum of all the elements in the nth row of pascal's triangle adds up to 2^n. Once we remove the 1's on each end of the triangle (hence the minus 2) we know that for prime numbers p that all elements are divisible by p, their sum is as well!

Now, I don't know off the top my head if this is only true for prime numbers. It isn't immediately obvious imo. However, if this is strong enough to be an if and only if, then I think I have independently discovered perhaps the *worst* way to test for primality lmao, scaling exponentially instead of the standard logarithmically.

[sbubbey]

hello maretu fans

[crypto-telegraph-news]

Ripple v. SEC Case – Key News for Oct. 11 A news which saw Judge Torres' court rule in favor of Ripple in the lawsuit Ripple v. SEC was that the company cross-appealed.......

[sleeper354]

I was going to just make this a comment, but I like explaining math and apparently the explanation would be too long for a comment!

So for all problems of this category, that is to say (a + b)^2 they will always follow the final form after expanding to be a^2 + 2ab + b^2.

This is because it is handled as follows: 1) We expand the exponent (the raised or superscripted 2) to make the equation into the form (in your case): (x/2 - 6) * (x/2 - 6) 2) From here we apply what I was always told was FOIL (which stands for First Outer Inner Last), meaning we will multiply the first two terms, then the outer two terms, the inner two terms, and finally the last two terms. For the purposes of your question here First terms are x/2 and x/2 Outer terms are x/2 and -6 Inner terms are -6 and x/2 Last terms are -6 and -6 3) Now we do the multiplications. For this, we are going to just do the multiplications and not worry about simplification yet, this helps with visualizing the steps: First terms multiplied together become: (x^2)/4 Outer terms multiplied together become: -6x/2 Inner terms multiplied together become: -6x/2 Last terms multiplied together become: 36 We can then put these terms together to have our intermediate equation of: (x^2)/4 - 6x/2 - 6x/2 + 36 4) Finally, we will simplify the equation. First we can reduce the outer and inner products from -6x/2 to -3x. Then we will collect those terms together, which will give us a final form of the equation which is: (x^2)/4 - 6x + 36 Which as others have already indicated/explained is the second option of the multiple choice here. This is process will also work for non-squared binomials, so for example you could use this same process for expanding and simplifying the equation (x+2)(x-13) in just the same way. We then can even apply this same process to large polynomials, even if they are different sizes, like (x+2)(x^2 - 2x + 3) which you can then use a similar method of FOIL to multiply together all of the terms. And since we've now demonstrated the way this works in expanding and simplifying, it also means we can take something like an already expanded and simplified polynomial and factor it backwards to it's original equation. Math is fun. It's like a puzzle game when it's in it's pure form. When you apply it, it then lets you do cool things like engineering.

please

how the fuck do i do this

[fawfulydoo]

🛎️🛎️🛎️ 喰らう喰らう喰らう感動

[pls dont tag as ship despite the nature of the song 😭🙏i just like making him a little fucked up and ooc as a treat]

[hbmmaster]

in zoology, animal species are given standard "latin" names consisting of two words, the genus name and the species name. typically, the genus name is a noun, and the species name is an adjective. following the rules of latin grammar, adjectives need to agree with nouns with grammatical gender, so if the genus name is a feminine latin noun then all species of that genus are given (in principle) adjectives marked with feminine latin suffixes.

in practice of course, new genus names don't always use actual latin words, so these latin grammatical gender rules need to be grafted onto words that aren't really latin. and this is where one of the weirdest conventions of zoological binomial nomenclature comes in!

how exactly do you determine what the latin grammatical gender of a word is if it isn't a latin word? according to the ICZN, it's simple:

if the word is from greek, use its gender in greek

otherwise, if the word is from a modern european language with grammatical gender that uses the latin alphabet, use the gender in the source language (yes it is that specific)

otherwise, if the name ends with -a it's feminine

otherwise, if the name ends with -um, -u, or -o it's neuter

otherwise, it's masculine

unless of course if the zoologist with naming dibs says explicitly that they think this genus should have an irregular gender.

anyway these rules are fascinating to me. why are they this specific? grammatical gender systems compatible with latin's adjective suffixes are found throughout the entire indo-european language family, so why restrict it to modern european latin-script languages (and greek)? I don't know!

[mammoth-clangen]

It makes me so happy to see how passionate you are about paleo!! That kind of dedication is so lovely to engage with

Oh I'm glad! I worry I'm rambling aimlessly so knowing that at least some people are enjoying it is nice to hear c:

For some paleo related fun, here's a huge Eurasian Pleistocene Big Cat sketchdump from 2023 when I was brainstorming for White Cat, Gold Plains

I still like a lot of these, though I was obviously trying to lean more into realism than I do in Kindred Also they're not Fleet Fangs, they're a different species within the same genera, Homotherium latidens and Panthera (leo) spelaea

Past me was some kind of madlad trying to put spots on things, no wonder the comic died after 10 pages c':

[probablyasocialecologist]

Ignatio Chapela, a forest pathologist at the University of California, Berkeley, was even more adamant that the idea of “species” limits the stories we can tell about kinds. “This binomial system of naming things is kind of quaint, but it is a complete artifact,” he told me. “You define things with two words and they become an archetypal species. In fungi, we have no idea what a species is. No idea. . . . A species is a group of organisms that potentially can exchange genetic material, have sex. That applies to organisms that reproduce sexually. So already in plants, where out of a clone you can have change as time goes by, you have problems with species. . . . You move out of vertebrates to the cnidarians, corals, and worms, and the exchange of DNA, and the way groups are made, are very different from us. . . . You go to fungi or bacteria, and the systems are completely different—completely crazy by our standards. A long-lived clone can all of a sudden go sexual: you can have hybridization in which whole big chunks of chromosomes are brought in; you have polyploidization or duplication of chromosomes, where a completely new thing comes out; you have symbiotization, the capture of, say, a bacterium that allows you to either use the whole bacterium as part of yourself or use parts of that bacterium’s DNA for your own genome. You’ve become something entirely different. Where do you break down the species?”

Anna Lowenhaupt Tsing, The Mushroom at the End of the World: On the Possibility of Life in Capitalist Ruins

[sprunkimortality]

OOC: How would the characters react to the horror versions of themselves?

(Note: This is hypothetical, but true to character to an extent. Also, not every character will be featured here.)

Oren: "Oh...oh jeez..."

OWAKCX: "N- No...no, n- no no no no!! That's n- not me! That won't be me! T- That- That's not ME!!"

Durple: "...what...happened...?"

Simon: "I'M NOT A MONSTER! I- I'M NOT A MONSTER! NO! NO NO NO NO!! STOP! DON'T DO THAT! DON'T DO THAT TO YOUR FRIENDS!!"

Wenda: "Who are you to use MY name to do such...things?! I would never- I- I would NEVER hurt them!!"

Saves: "..."

[zooterscooter]

“the beautiful taste of infatuation !!”

[batartshikns]

rusame sketches......

[kiwibongos]

honestly i definitely think it wasn't *just* teruteru who dabbled in tasting human flesh while in despair and i dont see anyone talking about that

like i really think akane, gundham, mikan and perhaps ibuki, definitely got into that stuff

[ephemeralhatred]