Avatar

bark bark bark bark

@jackmusclescarier / jackmusclescarier.tumblr.com

bark bark bark bark bark

the night was over so I gave a guy i had been flirting with my number. on paper, like on a post-it I got at the bar. this was the only option because i'm not very forward and he was with a big friend group and I was alone. this is 55 minutes ago and i already regret how often i'm gonna check my phone until I accept he won't text me.

I'm doing it! I'm learning forcing!

OOAAAAGHH

Ok that wasn't so bad

What's the gist

It's like making a new field out of an old field by adding a new element, QQ[√2], QQ(π), RR(x), etc. We take a model V of ZFC and add a new set G, calling it V[G]. The new element that we add is a 'generic' set, and the new model V[G] is (in a sense) all sets that we can define in V if we knew that G was going to exist.

The basic application taking a model of ZFC in which |R|=\aleph_1 and adding \aleph_2 new subsets of N, meaning that in V[G] we have |R|=\aleph_2.

Can we say something about what this model looks like? In particular (iirc?) you can take this model to be a transitive model by the Mostowski collapse lemma. Since the metatheory is (presumably?) agnostic on whether CH holds, that means that there aren't (necessarily) "really" \aleph_2 subsets of N. Does that mean that the naturals are (necessarily) non-standard? Or if they are (possibly) standard, does that mean that R is not (a subset of) what the metatheory thinks R is? Or is the model's idea of what \aleph_2 is different from the metatheory's, and in particular does the metatheory think it's the same size as \aleph_1? How many of these added sets does the metatheory think there are in the model?

An interesting demonstration of how the human brain works.

But also something of a lesson regarding perception, and the unreliability of subjective perspective versus objective reality.

You can be extremely certain about how you perceive the world, your "lived experience," that which you "feel it in my heart." But that doesn't mean it's actually true. And it doesn't mean we have to endorse it, or ignore or outright deny objective reality.

That's a "you" thing, not a "we" thing.

Source: twitter.com

the main reason we need to eradicate fahrenheit is that everyone who has ever forced me to read "human temperature scale" in an internet comment deserves to have their preferences violated

regrettably, the mario movie is very bad. it's worse than i was expecting and i didn't have high expectations. of course it's not easy to make a mario movie that's good, because mario games have very little plot and mario characters have no personality beyond the way they look -- but the makers of the mario movie decided to fill that void not with something interesting, but with feckless repetitive action scenes, bland references, and bad one-liners.

I realize tumblr needs to make money to keep existing and all that, and I wouldn't want to be in charge of having to extract that money, so I realize I'm being harsh on the poor soul in this situation

but how do you write "Building a community around merch has always been a dream of mine and I can't believe it's happening." without crawling out of your fucking skin

did grocery shipping for a group this weekend, for the first time in a long time, and was surprised to find out that i felt uncomfortable buying sandwich meat. used to not care about this much! (i ended up getting a vegan meat substitute with everyone's assent.)

If you don't give me a "show results" option and your categories are vague or non-exhaustive I reserve the right to give a bullshit answer to your poll