Okay, granted, xkcd started it, but still. Is the Banach-Tarski Paradox supposed to tap dance on the conservation of matter or am I missing a key point that make this make sense? I mean, fuck Euclidean geometry, I was always terrible at geometry, but this is screwing with how I internalize the universe so stop that shit, mmmkay?
God, this is like when they de-planeted Pluto.
Axiom of Choice is almost like, understandable in comparison.
Note: Admittedly, my reaction to Banach-Tarski and Axiom of Choice may be based on the entire sock construction, being that there's an assumption that socks are paired for choice when experience states the dryer inevitably eats one of every pair. Wait, is the dryer exercising Axiom of Choice in choosing one sock from the pair (bin) with no rule on how to pick and let's face it, sock-eating dryers are in fact infinite? If bin is a pair, socks are--objects? And Axion of Choice is what happens when there's no built-in selection mechanism? Ergo, my dryer performs higher mathematics in set theory every day.
I have no idea what it means that I'm relating my issues with laundry to mathematical theory. I'm honestly not entirely sure what I just wrote. But I am wondering if this can be used to find missing socks. And are they all white socks?
SGA totally destroys people's ability to nod blindly and not google this shit.
--Seperis, with a headache
Context at fandom_wank.
ETA: Melannen uses food coloring to visualize the paradox. I like the part about upper limit sizes. I still have a headache.
Posted at Dreamwidth: http://seperis.dreamwidth.org/52172.html. | You can reply here or there. | comments