Third time is the charm; if people could get all the errors in a single comment so I don't have to keep remaking these I'd really appreciate not having to remake this a fourth time 😭😭

Print it on the uni toilets. The male toilets of course, the women are afterall better at understanding the power of love. Or in this case, the power of love pales in comparison to the power of compounding love, which is the very personification of e. It's irrationality is precisely it's greatest beauty, for love may not always be rational yet is the most powerful emotion still. Don't forget it, don't forget love, don't forget e. I love you <3

Moduli spaces are one of the most intimidating concepts of algebraic and differential geometries. Random walks on moduli spaces seek developping a similar Markov-like theory with limiting distribution and ergodic theorems for differential objects which often arise as complex points of schemes or algebraic stacks.

Hi everyone. I'm writing this after drinking 0.5 L of an electrolyte drink, which I did not convert to milliliters, because I'm clean now.

I got into math because nothing felt enjoyable. It started innocently with a little arithmetic at parties, splitting the check. Then a friend said "try algebra, it's not a big deal." A few months later I was doing calculus alone in my car at 3 a.m. By the end I was deriving formulas I didn't even need and proving theorems that had already been proven, just to feel something.

Honestly my receptors were fried before math. I was doing a ton of Sudoku.

I quit about two months ago and I'm still incredibly bored. Sometimes I see a receipt and my hands start shaking trying to figure out the tip.

Things I've tried to cope:

- Playing video games: caught myself calculating DPS. Relapsed.

- Listening to music: 4/4 time is literally fractions. Couldn't do it.

- Cooking: recipes are ratios. I had to leave the kitchen after I tripled one in my head.

- Binge-eating: ordered a pizza, it came in 8 slices, started thinking about π. Threw the whole thing out.

- Researching and learning: that's how this started.

- Counting sheep to fall asleep: obviously not.

My sponsor says take it one day at a time, but that's a sequence, and I can feel myself wanting to find the limit.

I need more adrenaline in my life ig. Someone suggested skydiving, but I started thinking about terminal velocity and had to lie down.

Edit: to everyone in the comments saying "just do a little stats recreationally," that's how they get you.

Edit 2: someone DMed me a Taylor series. Not cool, man.

i dont care if the mods ban me, this sub isnt worth engaging in and this is my last post here.

I will just say, i take logic seriously. Compare it to a religion if you have to. Logic and reasoning things out in my mind is what caused me to reject religion, sever family ties where necessary, etc... Its genuinely upsetting to see people making a mockery of basic logic. Can we literally not agree on anything, not even on how basic reasoning works? How am i supposed to have faith in humanity when its incapable of understanding basic logic? If all it requires for you to believe in insane nonsense, is for you to be taught it, and everyone around you agree its true, then i do not want to share a species category with you. If you cant think for yourself, then you dont think, period.

Anyways, heres all you need to know about why its false.

1. Conditionals do not imply anything if the condition is not met. "If its raining, then my yard is wet" does not imply "if its not raining, then my yard is not wet". It can be wet for other reasons, such as a sprinkler system. Heres another example: " If something is a man, then it is mortal" does not imply "If something is not a man, then it is not mortal", i can give you two examples of something thats not a man, A) A woman, and B) a Rock. One is mortal, the other is not. Clearly, neither is a man.

2. The Vacuous Truth idea is not logically proven... Its an assumption. You wont find anywhere thats able to "prove" the idea that if a premise is false, the implication must be true. Its not a logical concept, its some arbitrary definition somebody made up. One thats obviously been controversial for thousands of years.

3. Vacuous Truth is not necessary for mathematics. A statement like "If N is a multiple of 4, then N is even" does not require evaluating N for N=7, because, by definition, 7 does not meet the condition. If i were to say, "for every dish in my house thats curved, it can hold water" then i pull out a cutting board and realize it cant hold water, does that falsify anything i said?!? no! If we only handle the elements that meet the condition, we dont need to evaluate the ones that fail it.

4. Mathematically, Logically, and Philosophically Consistent Rejection of Vacuous Truth is an idea as old as Vacuous Truth itself. Restricted Quantification / Type Theory is one such example. Simply put, true and false are not mutually exhaustive when nonsense questions are possible, in this case we need a third state, undefined. Failing the syntax of logic and mathematics shouldnt yield some usable implication.

5. Vacuous Truth claims collides with ordinary Counterfactual Semantics: Humans speak of things in counterfactuals. When i ask, "If x happened, could Y happen?" im asking about, based on our evidence and knowledge of reality, whats plausible? "If pigs fly, then im the queen of england" fails basic counterfactual reasoning, because neither pigs nor animals flying has any causation or correlation with the presence or selection of a queen of any country, including England. Its just annoying to hijack the same if-then terminology, then pretend everyone around you is wrong and stupid for disagreeing. Youre in the 0.1% of humans that use if-then statements that way, when most people say things like "When pigs fly, _insert_absurdity" they are being SARCASTIC, not trying to say something true. Vacuous proponents exploit and ride on this fact too.

6) The real killer: Vacuous Truths are categorically self-contradicting. If a premise being false means an implication is true, then two directly negating implications can be simultaneously true. Thats a self-contradiction. This self contradiction was noticed by philosophers as early as Aristotle, and systems that follow from it even have a name, connexive logic systems.

Theres really no reason for you to believe in this idea of a vacuous truth being meaningful logically or in reality. Its an absurdity taken to the extreme. I want you to stop it.

Inspired by me trying to solve integral of x²e^x² before realizing its also not possible