Owl [he/him]@hexbear.net to urbanism@hexbear.netEnglish · 2 months agoxkcd falls for "just one more lane"hexbear.netimagemessage-square25fedilinkarrow-up1115arrow-down12file-text
arrow-up1113arrow-down1imagexkcd falls for "just one more lane"hexbear.netOwl [he/him]@hexbear.net to urbanism@hexbear.netEnglish · 2 months agomessage-square25fedilinkfile-text
minus-squareTomorrow_Farewell [any, they/them]@hexbear.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up12·edit-22 months agoWe are cooking with manifolds EDIT: wait, no, WTH am I saying? At the forking point, that thing is not locally homeomorphic to R^n for any natural n. Time to commit eepy.
minus-squarepeeonyou [he/him]@hexbear.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·2 months agoyes this arrangement of words seems like it would make sense to someone, i agree
minus-squaregchromodynamics [any, comrade/them]@hexbear.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·2 months agoIt is if you delete the forking point no? So just make it fork at Chaitin’s constant or some other real number no one will notice missing.
minus-squareTomorrow_Farewell [any, they/them]@hexbear.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·2 months ago It is if you delete the forking point no? If.
We are cooking with manifoldsEDIT: wait, no, WTH am I saying? At the forking point, that thing is not locally homeomorphic to R^n for any natural n.
Time to commit eepy.
yes this arrangement of words seems like it would make sense to someone, i agree
It is if you delete the forking point no? So just make it fork at Chaitin’s constant or some other real number no one will notice missing.
If.