this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2025
54 points (95.0% liked)

Science Memes

18180 readers
790 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] coherent_domain@infosec.pub 16 points 1 month ago (2 children)

If function composition is chaotic, then set intersection is certainly not lawful.

[–] MBM@lemmings.world 9 points 1 month ago

Not being commutative is pretty chaotic

[–] Sivecano@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Set theory is relatively lawful.

[–] coherent_domain@infosec.pub 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Counter point, no lawful theory shell let 5 ∪ 7 type check.

[–] Sivecano@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I mean... Ideal theory of rings? (Smth like (5) ∪ (7))

[–] coherent_domain@infosec.pub 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I feel yields different result than 5 ∪ 7 in the classical set theoretical encoding... I believe 5 ∪ 7 = 7 in the standard encoding of set theory. Because ∪ is the join operation in the natural number lattice (every total order give a lattice structure), yet the lattice structure in ideals of natural number ring is different: the join is LCM and the meet is GCD.

I guess my objection is that the ∪ and ∩ in the set theoretical encoding is rather trivial: the lattice structure in a total order is not terribly informative: join gives the larger element, whereas meet gives the smaller one. Yet the standard encoding of natrual number in category theory (the category generated by one arrow on one object) is slightly more interesting, as composition encodes addition, which is arguably the most interesting opration on natrual numbers.

That being said arguing about encoding of natrual number is not the most informative discussion. but I feel set theory in general is very low level, yet people usually think in more algebraic and high level way, which aligns more closely with category theory.

[–] Sivecano@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago

Totally, set theory is deep dark magic and tbh set theorists kinda scare me. Like they'll gleefully introduce incredibly complicated objects with very little intuition about them