• Aniki@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    56 minutes ago

    i know this meme is quite old but i still don’t agree with it. sex is not about [what other people call “sexual intercourse”]. instead it’s about having a pretense to meet other people. i believe that the underlying dynamic that moves you to go to parties and meet other people is mostly sexual. i.e. you wouldn’t go out so much just to make platonic acquaintances. but once that you’re out, you also talk to other people! which brings communication into society.

  • bigbangdangler@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    17 hours ago

    If I’m reading this correctly, then an orgy isn’t an orgy if there is at least one person not fucking. This means that a single camera person not getting any turns what could be an orgy into just a set of sets of people fucking.

    • Ajen@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      No, it just means that the camera person doesn’t belong to the subset of H that makes up the orgy. You can have an orgy in the same room as someone who isn’t fucking - proximity isn’t an issue.

  • ToastedRavioli@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 day ago

    Fun fact: Will I. Fuck is actually the maternal grandfather of Black Eyed Peas member Will I. Am, by way of his mother, Anita Good Fuck

  • farmgineer@nord.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 day ago

    I really need to refresh my set theory symbols. I haven’t taken that class in… oh no… Almost 30 years

  • PlexSheep@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 day ago

    I don’t like how the pairs $(h, h^‘)$ are implicitly the same as $(h^’, h)$. I think the post confuses the pairs with small sets. Normally, order matters in a pair.

    • notabot@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 day ago

      The formatting on your comment seems have gotten a little messed up, so appologies if I’ve missed your point, but the paper seems quite specific that the pair (h,h') is not equivalent to (h',h), especially in term of Def 1. For instance, the result of f(h,h') may be positive while the result of f(h',h) is negative or zero.

      • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        20 hours ago

        The formatting you’re seeing is controlled by carets (^). Just replace the start and end of the superscript text with them.

        I see this often when talking about exponents: x^2 is less than x^3.

        The superscript needs to be surrounded to work properly: x(x+1) is greater than x(x-1).

        In this case, the effected text is $(h, h^‘)$ and $(h^’, h)$. I’m not sure why the prime notation needs to be superscripted, probably something to do with the formatter that is expectinng $s. I think the correct formatting (at least for me) is (h, h) and (h, h).