• mumblerfish@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      2 months ago

      I would just say that the first ones tries to describe the reals, but fail. Similary with the rationals. Like the second one, x belongs to the set containing itself and the real line. So in best case, x is the real line, not a member of the real line.

  • itslilithEnglish
    8·
    2 months ago

    Last one is the Rationals united with a rational number and the empty set (which, union with the empty set is the identity operation)

    Yeah, this is gibberish

  • DahGangalang@infosec.pubEnglish
    5·
    2 months ago

    I’m really rusty on my set theory symbolism.

    Can we get a plain English translation of each of these (probably don’t need a full interpretation, just “how would you read this aloud”).

    • mumblerfish@lemmy.worldEnglish
      12·
      2 months ago

      Between negative infinity and infinity

      x is a member in the set of x:es where x is on the real line Nope, it is: x is a member of the set consisting of x itself and the real line.

      The set of x:es where x is on the real line and the absolute value of x is greater or equal to zero

      This one makes no sense… x is a member of the set cosisting the union of: the set of m/n where m and n belong to the integers, n being nonzero; the set x; and the empty set.

      Last one makes no sense since x appear to be a set and a rational number at the same time. Implied by the meme it also supposed to be equivalent to the real line, which it is not.

      • JanetEnglish
        3·
        2 months ago

        makes sense to me: i dont know the answer :3