Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

"The number of x" is not "natural".
 help



This is caveman logic and I support it.

Why? The number of ways to shuffle 5 cards is a relevant thing to talk about, and is a perfectly fine number we use all the time.

What about 6 cards? 7 cards? At what point does it become "not natural"?


Not op, but the number of cards doesn't matter. Only one shuffle can exist at a time, the "number of shuffles" is not a number of natural objects but rather a cardinality of a set. And as we know sets and cardinalities open the gates of hell.

This doesn't mean it's not a "relevant thing to talk about". It just means that these mathematical constructs while useful don't maintain a direct connection to reality, kind of like complex numbers.


> Only one shuffle can exist at a time, the "number of shuffles" is not a number of natural objects but rather a cardinality of a set.

I really don't understand what this means in practice. If there are exactly 50 rocks in front of me right now, I can't talk about 51? It doesn't maintain a direct connection to reality to talk about what would happen if I threw another rock on the pile? Or if that's connected cause another rock exists, what about if I have exactly 20 chickens, and I want to talk about what would happen when another is born? Is this "connected to reality" and "a number of natural objects"? Or "the cardinality of a set" instead?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: