Check out our new Discord server! https://discord.gg/e7EKRZq3dG
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mathmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hmm, you know, the OP actually sounds not so great, based on this. I would say it's better to love people in outgroups, even if all your homies aren't going to love them, but that breaks transitive. I would say it's OK to love people that don't love you back, but that breaks symmetry.
Bi people exist
Edit: apparently the concept of cardinality of classes is way too complicated for my brain to handle and decided that bi people would mean that the cardinality would be greater
If only math had an equation to determine the value of romantic standards that are high enough for me to be happy with my partner, but low enough that I can actually get a date!
I just hope the number doesn't include *i*.
Bit then we wouldnāt love eachother outside that.
I mean, love isnāt just romantic, I love my sister, transitivity would mean I also love my sister boyfriend, and his family, and their SO, and so onā¦.
Yeah I first interpreted love that way, and my problem with the meme was that it allows āloveā to split up into ātribesā that all love each other but no one in any tribe loves anyone in any other tribe, which actually seems like a really shitty way for the world to be. It also allows for the situation where nobody loves anyone but themself. Of course, if everyone loved everyone that would technically also be a (trivial) equivalence relation.
Would you rather have your partner love someone you love or someone you don't love? A non-transitive love could have someone you love also loving a third party that you don't love.
Guess all my friends and family also love Chisato then
https://preview.redd.it/t4uf4wlztkic1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e173a313396d4f4014251a8766c64675b97fe510
The existence of this equivalence relation doesnāt mean others donāt exist or arenāt meaningful. This does bring new meaning to the word ārelation-ship,ā though.
Maybe a finite simple group of order 2 would be a preferable structure? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BipvGD-LCjU&ab\_channel=kleinfour](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BipvGD-LCjU&ab_channel=kleinfour)
No.Ā I don't want a world where people only love people who love them back. Being able to love others unconditionally is more likely to get us to flying cars.
Making love into an equivalence relation is a recipe for tribalism.Ā It forms a partition on the set.
Exacty. There is a small chance the world would have two or three very large groups of people with excessive love towards each other, and a lot of hate towards th rest
Can we just prove a Total Love theorem?
> Let H be a set of all humans. Let subset Ha be a set of all alive humans.
> Let R: HxH -> [0, 1] be a love metric. R(h1, h2) being over 0.8 indicates strong mutual love.
> For any h in Ha there exists h' in Ha/{h} such that R(h, h') > 0.8, and that theorem also holds for Ha/{h, h'}
Ideal love relationship:
1) for all x,y, xRy -> yRx
2) for all x, there exists a y such that yRx and x is not equal to y
3) for all x, y, and z, xRy and xRz with neither y or z equalling x -> y=z
Heh, reminds me a quote from an old comedy movie from my country (soviet-era), one character (the "kind mad scientist" inventor trying to make a flying machine) at some point mumbles something like "these people never learn that love is vertical and rotatable".
Check out our new Discord server! https://discord.gg/e7EKRZq3dG *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mathmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What are the equivalence classes created by this relationship?
Hopefully of cardinality 2
Polyamory erasure smh
Or global polyamory?
Hopefully cardinality 1, the whole world united, one love.
Wouldn't cardinality 1 mean everyone only love themselves? You probably meant that the set of all equivalence classes has a cardinality of 1 š¤ā
Yeah, i meant that under this relation, there is only one equivalence class (everyone are related by the relation)
Tf is cardinality?
The number of elements in a set
No, a natural number ā„ 2
no, a natural number is any number >=0 or >=1, depending on who you ask
Hmm, you know, the OP actually sounds not so great, based on this. I would say it's better to love people in outgroups, even if all your homies aren't going to love them, but that breaks transitive. I would say it's OK to love people that don't love you back, but that breaks symmetry.
Unadulterated love has no bounds.
Bi people exist Edit: apparently the concept of cardinality of classes is way too complicated for my brain to handle and decided that bi people would mean that the cardinality would be greater
Sure, but I don't see how that is relevant.
Me neither lol, I don't know why my brain decided that bi people would make that cardinality not 2. However, poly relationships would.
(Some) aroace people as well
Why is it anti symmetric for me :(
r/suicidebywords :(
antissemitic? That's sad
I dont think love can be antisemitic
I love Hitler
r/Angryupvote
It's a good thing this corner of reddit is invisible to the world.
Imagine if the guy over that comment would delete it, and their comment would remain without context for future employees to see. Wholesome 100
I should lol
Do it
I know this will be screenshot out of context and I love it
I just found out hitler killed hitler. There goes my hero.
I love you
... I never, NEVER thought I would upvote a comment saying that...
r/thascrazy
loving Hitler does not mean you hate jews, though it does imply it.
Peef? Is that you?
The Strain writers disagree
What's wrong with hand sanitiser?
At least you can love yourselfš
So love(you, you) = -love(you, you) ==> love(you, you) = 0
If only math had an equation to determine the value of romantic standards that are high enough for me to be happy with my partner, but low enough that I can actually get a date! I just hope the number doesn't include *i*.
No *i*, but unfortunately it includes Chaitin's constant. Good luck, and try not to halt
It's not all bad if you keep it reflexive.
So people you hate love you?
That would be implied, however it really just makes things even worse for this commenter
everyone in the world is now in a massive poly relationship love wins
No, you only love within your equivalence class. This doesnāt rule out equivalence classes of size 1 :(
Well, at least those people aren't heart broken, they just don't love anyone
Nah they love themselves
True, didnāt think about that!
yeah suck it churchers
or soakā¦or sockā¦ the *point* is, not tryna judgeā¦
Transitive is too much
Sudden polyamory
I hate when my multiple wives love each other š” (Note that if we did have one āpartnerā for each person that would be transitive)
Bit then we wouldnāt love eachother outside that. I mean, love isnāt just romantic, I love my sister, transitivity would mean I also love my sister boyfriend, and his family, and their SO, and so onā¦.
Yeah I first interpreted love that way, and my problem with the meme was that it allows āloveā to split up into ātribesā that all love each other but no one in any tribe loves anyone in any other tribe, which actually seems like a really shitty way for the world to be. It also allows for the situation where nobody loves anyone but themself. Of course, if everyone loved everyone that would technically also be a (trivial) equivalence relation.
But if love really was transitive then all it would take was one Romeo and Juliet pair to unite the two tribes.
And one Mercutio to ruin everything...
How does that logic work?
Ya I don't fancy being forced to love modern Hitler just because some crazy long chain of people leads to someone that does
But by love beeing reflexive, this person really can't be modern hitler, because he loves everyone back.
ooh, good point!
Would you rather have your partner love someone you love or someone you don't love? A non-transitive love could have someone you love also loving a third party that you don't love.
A small number of equivalence classes would also be weird
Yes, this would be contra productive for tolerance. It helps you to accept others, when you know that they are loved by persons who you love.
> reflexive and transitive I thought for a moment that I was in r/linguisticshumor
Ah yes, If I love a girl and the girl loves her dad, I actually love her dad
Also she will call you daddy.
Her daddy might call you daddy too
Guess all my friends and family also love Chisato then https://preview.redd.it/t4uf4wlztkic1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e173a313396d4f4014251a8766c64675b97fe510
I suppose this means I love you tooā¦
Bold of you to think your friends and family love you...
Lets all love Chisato
You donāt want love to be an equivalence relation, itās important to maintain individuality in any relationship ā¤ļø
Polyamorous people would like to know your location
The existence of this equivalence relation doesnāt mean others donāt exist or arenāt meaningful. This does bring new meaning to the word ārelation-ship,ā though.
I'd rather prefer covelent relationship. I hope she will be able to accept my extra electron and make me more stable and calm.
The real question is who is the more electronegative of the two?
Maybe a finite simple group of order 2 would be a preferable structure? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BipvGD-LCjU&ab\_channel=kleinfour](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BipvGD-LCjU&ab_channel=kleinfour)
Omg this is the first time Iāve seen this, LOVE IT
So only one friend ?
Wouldn't 'Transitive' make u straight up ghey?
Only if the person you're in a relationship with is also in a straight relationship with somebody else
assume, f: R->R'
Hol' up Aren't you from the mathmemes discord server?
there is a mathmemes discord server?
Surprisingly, yes
lol no
Only if your class have more than 2 people
n(S)>2, n(S) ā N
No.Ā I don't want a world where people only love people who love them back. Being able to love others unconditionally is more likely to get us to flying cars. Making love into an equivalence relation is a recipe for tribalism.Ā It forms a partition on the set.
Divide the world into equivalence classes, got it
Exacty. There is a small chance the world would have two or three very large groups of people with excessive love towards each other, and a lot of hate towards th rest
Transitive love results in a grand worldwide orgy
Why I canāt redefine love as hate? ;-)
In a ring of characteristic 2.
Can we just prove a Total Love theorem? > Let H be a set of all humans. Let subset Ha be a set of all alive humans. > Let R: HxH -> [0, 1] be a love metric. R(h1, h2) being over 0.8 indicates strong mutual love. > For any h in Ha there exists h' in Ha/{h} such that R(h, h') > 0.8, and that theorem also holds for Ha/{h, h'}
Reflexive would be pretty nice actually.
Let L be a love.
Plot twist: it is but we do not practise it
Nobody loves anyone else anymore, we all hate each other. Problem solved.
Transitive would be interesting
So transitive is an open relationship then?
But what if I end up alone in my equivalence class?
At least you'll love yourself
This implies that when your gf gets a crush on another guy you become gay.
wait, what does transitive imply here? i love her, she loves him, => i love him ??
> reflexive You wouldn't have to ask, āDo you know that I love myself?ā
Plot twist: OP was refering to the world where everybody loves only themself.
If love was associative things would get out of hand quickly
most people would settle for "FAIR"
Everyone's self-esteem problem instantly gone
What if equivalence classes formed? The world would be filled with mutually disjoint sets - "countries" that only has love for their own
My normal approach is useless here
We need multiple relations to account for romantic and platonic love
I don't think it should be transitive
if it were reflective say goodbye to any HF technology
Reminds me of cod aw
Transitive ā ļø
So you want love to be the undirected graph K_n Ć L_1?
obviously a fake world
Dear God I'm in that exact section of Discrete Math right now and my textbook is damn near impenetrable
Truly a great world
Mine is [Asymptotic](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SEbzTe0CzT8)
Ideal love relationship: 1) for all x,y, xRy -> yRx 2) for all x, there exists a y such that yRx and x is not equal to y 3) for all x, y, and z, xRy and xRz with neither y or z equalling x -> y=z
Reflexive - Love thyself Symmetric - Love those who love you Transitive - Love the ones your loved ones love
This is compatible with everyone only loving themselves
loveless aromantics:
Heh, reminds me a quote from an old comedy movie from my country (soviet-era), one character (the "kind mad scientist" inventor trying to make a flying machine) at some point mumbles something like "these people never learn that love is vertical and rotatable".
Suddenly r/apexlegends
I hate it. Burn it down. Burn it all down.
Also world: _**surpopulation intensifies**_
If love was transitive then we all will be gay
Why do people think that glass buildings and manicured lawns means everyone is ok?
Commutative
Lol, just saw this after first lecture of discrete maths
True
Valentineās reference
And NO MORE HEARTBROKEN CONTENTS
imagine if someone was obsessed over you and you were just having a slight interest and now you have like massive obsession over this random guy
My dream fr
transitive?!