JS devs are like yep, that's clearly concatenation of 2 strings.
this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2026
126 points (77.6% liked)
memes
21448 readers
4028 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Mathematicians too
Gardeners too
I came to complain about JS and see that I was beat to the punch
Came here for JavaScript mention, was not disappointed.
I mean everyone looking at that equation should think that
Compared to a type safe language where it would be an equation rather then concatenation.
Only when the first statement is a string already would that result in a string concat.
They are implied to both being strings. As such the first one already is a string. Neither is marked as such in a standard way though.
In base 1 there would just be 579 ones in a row. Someone doesn't understand base 1.
Not exactly. In base 1 they don't have to be in a row because the order doesn't matter. For example, 16 could be 16 ones in a row, or 4 rows of 4 ones, 2 rows of 8, or 16 in a circle, an X, or a completely disorderly bunch.
123 + 456 = 123456 Or translated to decimal 3 + 3 = 6
This is slop, look at the "108" in the middle. I hope you found it somewhere and didn't realize it was AI-generated.
Oh and the watermark/attribution on the left. I guess someone put the original meme through an AI tool to colorize it. Weird.
Clearly it's a lopsided theta!
I mean not really cause base one would just be 111 + 111 = 111111. On the other hand if its baseless it still doesnt work cause then its 3 + 6 = 9? But with that it could just be base 10. One thing that could work is that its actually a split base 4 and 8 system where the first 3 digits of a number are base 4 and the rest are base 8 but this is a very confusing system and the opposite of what is usual. It could also be a system where 1, 2, 3 are used for whole parts of numbers and 4, 5, 6 were added when they inveneted fractions so they represent the fractional part of numbers? Thats what im gonna put my money on tho im probably ignoring something obvious.
I disagree with you definition of base 1. Since base 10 is 0 through 9, and base 2 is 0 and 1, therefor base 1 must be only 0.
The real question is: How do we continue?
What is base 0?
Is that equal to base 1?
Are the negative bases?
Base 1 is just run length encoding.
1: 1
2: 11
3: 111
...
10: 1111111111
That would be reverse run length encoding. Also, Base 1 is just zero, everything equals zero.
123 = 000 = 0
456 = 000 = 0
123456 = 000000 = 0
123 + 456 = 123456
0 + 0 = 0
69 + 420 = 42069
Base-n is a numeral positioning system where the value of each digit is n times the value of the dight directly to its right.
We typically don’t let the maximum digit we use to be greater than or equal to n because then there would be multiple ways to express the same number.
However when working with weird bases, sometimes it’s useful to forgo this convention.
Base 1 is a tally system. The symbol can be anything as long as it's discrete.
And what about base e or fractional bases?
You can read all about those in The Lesser Key of Solomon
Base 0 has zero digits, so it would just be blank
This is completely true but i kinda shortcut to a zeroless base 1, basically a counting system. Another way you could make it work is of you had a seperate numeral for each factor of 2. So 1->1, 2->2, 3->4, 4->8, etc. So 123 is just 1+10+100->111 in base 2 so 123+456=123456 is true because 7+56 is 63. Idk i think we are overcomplicating a meme but thats what the internet is for and i think this system is actually not even that cursed.
I think they just meant modulo 1 instead
Popmath youtubers: "123+456=123456 😱" actual explanation depends on an obscure redefinition of numbers, + and =.
In this case it depends on having base 1 with all digits being equivalent (i.e. 123 = 456 = 000).
So effectively 3 + 3 = 6, just counting digits.
~~No, in this system 3 + 3 = 33 or 66 or 12 or 11, etc. Basically any digit is equivalent 1 in normal base 1.~~
EDIT: I blame lack of coffee for misreading Serinus@lemmy.world comment
Yes they were correct.
123 + 456 = 123456 in base 1 (assuming all symbols are considered the same digit) would be equivalent to 3 + 3 = 6 in base 10.
that, or you've accidentally used string instead of int 😅
Before anyone calculates this: it's not possible in base 10 or any base because 3+6 ≠ 6
Oh, strings have no limiters, and + is the string concatenation operand?
Being in "this is obviously wrong" category, I have no choice but to downvote this.
It's just a sum of the sets 123 and 456 where 123 +456 = 123×456
I feel like this well represents one of my first coding mistakes in VB, right before I started way overusing conversion calls
I asked python to do this, and it checks out...
a = "123"
b = "456"
c = a + b
print(c)
123456This holds when + is a group operation (concatenation) acting on the set of all possible finite strings.
Mathing made easy.