• finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    I actually tend to treat fucks like the constant C in calculus. Ideally it should cancel out entirely and you should give the minimal amount of fucks in all of your final answers.

      • dohpaz42@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        You’re thinking of the fucks relatives, or also known in scientific circles as The Alabamian Constant (TAC for short).

    • Steve Dice@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      Oh, there’s definitely irrational fucks. I don’t see a proof that there’s indeed a fuckomorphism between C and F, though.

    • ornery_chemist@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      Nah, just look at the folks over in HR. Irrational fucks to a person. Though I suppose all that means is that there are some irrational elements in the set, not necessarily that it’s isomorphic to the field of complex numbers. So can we diagonalize fuckery somehow…?

    • MisterFrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      There being absolute fucks doesn’t imply positive and negative fucks though.

      It implies we’ve set a point to measure against which we call zero fucks.

      Perhaps there’s an absolute zero fucks which can never be reached.

  • Stalinwolf@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    What in the fucking fuck?! is a good one, too. Has some real what in tarnation? energy to it.

    I also learned that FUCKING GOD!! is my go-to expletive when I spilled some icecream and my daughter (3 at the time) started yelling it in the car.

  • Entitle9294@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    6 days ago

    Ok, everyone but me seems to get it, so I’ll ask. I get everything but the last bit. What does “isomorphic with the complex field” mean? I think I know what isomorphic means from some dabbling I’ve done in category theory.

    • Opisek@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      6 days ago

      In means you can map every element bijectively to one from the complex field AND addition and multiplication can be performed in either field without leading to contractions, i.e. a+b=c <=> f(a)+f(b)=f(a+b)=f© and equivalent for multiplication. This is the part that the meme fails to consider, because nowhere is addition or multiplication for this novel field defined.

      • mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        6 days ago

        “i do not give a single fuck” implies an additive identity fuck, and “I don’t give two fucks” implies a multiplicative identity fuck. That’s a start at least!

      • Entitle9294@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        6 days ago

        I’ll give this some attention when time permits because this does not make things clearer, lol.

        I’ll start with what a field is and a complex field 🤞

          • Eq0@literature.cafe
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 days ago

            Not only for any number of fucks there is a corresponding complex number, but the basic operations (+, -, x, /) work in the same way for fucks and complex numbers

            Overall, if two things are isomorphic you can consider them «  the same »