this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2025
658 points (98.8% liked)

Science Memes

16945 readers
2001 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

Getting killed by a train is apparently just an inevitability in this universe. Either choice is just the grand conductors plan.

[–] Sunsofold@lemmings.world 19 points 1 day ago (4 children)

I ignore the question and go to the IT and maintenance teams to put a series of blocks, physical and communication-system-based, between the maths and philosophy departments. Attempts to breach containment will be met with deadly force.

load more comments (4 replies)

The second one. It'll be a bit rough, but overall should be a smoother ride for the occupants.

[–] OhNoMoreLemmy@lemmy.ml 29 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Bottom has infinite density and will collapse into a black hole killing everyone, and destroying the tram and lever.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sgtlion@hexbear.net 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Bottom. No matter what your "real" number assignation in the queue is, theres an infinite number of people before the train gets to you. Therefore every single person will live a full life before the train reaches them.

[–] rothaine@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago (4 children)
[–] sgtlion@hexbear.net 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What real number is he? There's infinity people before him too

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MeowZedong@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 day ago

They too lived a full (very short) life.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 13 points 1 day ago (3 children)

The top one, because time is still a factor.

Sure, infinite people will die either way, but that is only after infinite time.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] BenLeMan@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)
  1. I lay some extra track so the train runs over the perverts that come up with these "dilemmas" instead. Problem solved. 👍
[–] answersplease77@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Actually... this means there are infinite people so:

Let X be the number of people killed = (-infinity)

As infity is defined :

infinity + X = infinity

infinity + (-infinity) =

infinity - infinity = infinty

So no people would have died black guy pointing at his head meme

[–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 22 hours ago

Desnt work when they're different classes of infinity.

[–] Tiger_Man_@szmer.info 11 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Considering that there's a small but non zero chance of surviving getting ran over by a train some of them are gonna survive this and since there are infinite people that will result in infinite train-proof people spawning machine

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 day ago

Bottom. Train will stall faster.

[–] narr1@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 23 hours ago

i asked myself: wwjd? and now i ask you because i have no idea

[–] InvalidName2@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 day ago (10 children)

Some infinities are bigger than other infinities

Is this actually true?

Many eons ago when I was in college, I worked with a guy who was a math major. He was a bit of a show boat know it all and I honestly think he believed that he was never wrong. This post reminded me of him because he and I had a debate / discussion on this topic and I came away from that feeling like he he was right and I was too dumb to understand why he was right.

He was arguing that if two sets are both infinite, then they are the same size (i.e. infinity, infinite). From a strictly logical perspective, it seemed to me that even if two sets were infinite, it seems like one could still be larger than the other (or maybe the better way of phrasing it was that one grew faster than the other) and I used the example of even integers versus all integers. He called me an idiot and honestly, I've always just assumed I was wrong -- he was a math major at a mid-ranked state school after all, how could he be wrong?

Thoughts?

[–] for_some_delta@beehaw.org 4 points 1 day ago

Hilbert's Paradox of the Grand Hotel seems to be the thought experiment with which you were engaged with your math associate. There are countable and uncountable infinities. Integers and skip counted integers are both countable and infinite. Real numbers are uncountable and infinite. There are sets that are more uncountable than others. That uncountability is denoted by aleph number. Uncountable means can't be mapped to the natural numbers (1, 2, 3...). Infinite means a list with all the elements can't be created.

Two sets with infinitely many things are the same size when you can describe a one to one mapping from one set to the other.

For example, the counting numbers are the same size as the counting numbers except for 7. To go from the former set to the latter set, we can map 1-6 to themselves, and then for every counting number 7 or larger, add one. To reverse, just do the opposite.

Likewise, we can map the counting numbers to only the even counting numbers by doubling the value or each one as our mapping. There is a first even number, and a 73rd even number, and a 123,456,789,012th even number.

By contrast, imagine I claim to have a map from the counting numbers to all the real numbers between 0 and 1 (including 0 but not 1). You can find a number that isn't in my mapping. Line all the numbers in my mapping up in the order they map from the counting numbers, so there's a first real number, a second, a third, and so on. To find a number that doesn't appear in my mapping anywhere, take the first digit to the right of the decimal from the first number, the second digit from the second number, the third digit from the third number, and so on. Once you have assembled this new (infinitely long) number, change every single digit to something different. You could add 1 to each digit, or change them at random, or anything else.

This new number can't be the first number in my mapping because the first digit won't match anymore. Nor can it be the second number, because the second digit doesn't match the second number. It can't be the third or the fourth, or any of them, because it is always different somewhere. You may also notice that this isn't just one number you've constructed that isn't anywhere in the mapping - in fact it's a whole infinite family of numbers that are still missing, no matter what order I put any of the numbers in, and no matter how clever my mapping seems.

The set of real numbers between 0 and 1 truly is bigger than the set of counting numbers, and it isn't close, despite both being infinitely large.

[–] umean2me@discuss.online 5 points 1 day ago

It is true! Someone much more studied on this than me could provide a better explanation, but instead of "size" it's called cardinality. From what I understand your example of even integers versus all integers would still be the same size, since they can both be mapped to the natural numbers and are therefore countable, but something like real numbers would have a higher cardinality than integers, as real numbers are uncountable and infinite. I think you can have different cardinalities within uncountable infinities too, but that's where my knowledge stops.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's pretty well settled mathematics that infinities are "the same size" if you can draw any kind of 1-to-1 mapping function between the two sets. If it's 1-to-1, then every member of set A is paired off with a member of B, and there are no elements left over on either side.

In the example with even integers y versus all integers x, you can define the relation x <--> y = 2*x. So the two sets "have the same size".

But the real numbers are provably larger than any of the integer sets. Meaning every possible mapping function leaves some reals leftover.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] missfrizzle@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

you know, I'm not sure you can have an uncountably infinite number of people. so whatever that abomination is I'll send the trolley down its way. it's probably an SCP.

either way infinite people die, just not getting involved

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›