Rantanen vs Necas points race to end of season.

“Ah, yes, scientifically speaking, 1 is a whole unit, brimming with ontological existence, while zero is a quantum void, a mathematical singularity where nothingness itself paradoxically exists. To claim 1 is 100% of zero is akin to suggesting that a photon has mass! The very nature of zero is that it represents the absence of any quantity, while 1 is a distinct, indivisible entity in the set of natural numbers. So no, 1 can’t possibly be 100% of zero, because that would imply the universe itself is a cruel joke, where the potential of zero is arbitrarily superseded by the certainty of 1.”

We don’t need actual facts getting in the way of a sportsbro’s joke!

NEEEEEERRRRRRDDDDDSSSSSS!
I absolutely love the part where Rantanen goals is quantum void
 
“Ah, yes, scientifically speaking, 1 is a whole unit, brimming with ontological existence, while zero is a quantum void, a mathematical singularity where nothingness itself paradoxically exists. To claim 1 is 100% of zero is akin to suggesting that a photon has mass! The very nature of zero is that it represents the absence of any quantity, while 1 is a distinct, indivisible entity in the set of natural numbers. So no, 1 can’t possibly be 100% of zero, because that would imply the universe itself is a cruel joke, where the potential of zero is arbitrarily superseded by the certainty of 1.”

We don’t need actual facts getting in the way of a sportsbro’s joke!

NEEEEEERRRRRRDDDDDSSSSSS!
1742228864998.png
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Avsfan1921
“Ah, yes, scientifically speaking, 1 is a whole unit, brimming with ontological existence, while zero is a quantum void, a mathematical singularity where nothingness itself paradoxically exists. To claim 1 is 100% of zero is akin to suggesting that a photon has mass! The very nature of zero is that it represents the absence of any quantity, while 1 is a distinct, indivisible entity in the set of natural numbers. So no, 1 can’t possibly be 100% of zero, because that would imply the universe itself is a cruel joke, where the potential of zero is arbitrarily superseded by the certainty of 1.”

We don’t need actual facts getting in the way of a sportsbro’s joke!

NEEEEEERRRRRRDDDDDSSSSSS!
It has nothing to do with what you're saying. You just cannot scale 0. It's undefined. Multiplication as a group operation is only defined within the range ]0, inf[.

For a non-commutative multiplication operation, you cannot have 0 as the constant, at least if you want it to be bijective(generally desirable for scaling). The entire distribution would collapse onto 0.
 
adding hide avatars option

Ad

Ad