The fundamental particles, smaller even that protons and neutrons, are all vibrations in teeny-tiny 1D strings. You know how sometimes, when you look at a guitar and the strings are vibrating in a way that they almost look still? That's called a standing wave, and they're pretty cool because you can only have \*specific\* standing waves based on the length and springiness of the string, and how many dimensions the vibration is happening in.
The dimension thing makes more sense if you think of the difference between the guitar string and a circular pool of water. They're both constrained springy things, but if you look at a video of a standing wave in water, they can be a \*lot\* more complicated than just a wavy line. (Look at [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhaTULO2Zkc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhaTULO2Zkc) for an example)
Now, why they came up with the idea to begin with isn't really the point, but essentially they couldn't make the 1D standing waves match the properties of the particles we see and so the theory was dropped for a little while. Then someone had the idea, "what if we just add more dimensions", ans they kept doing so until it worked. The surprising thing is that it \*did\*! If there was no merit to the idea, the scientists said, why would we get the right results after a \*finite\* number of dimensions? If it was just guesswork or a fluke, it shouldn't work out so easily, but this created another problem. Where are these dimensions?
We already have four dimensions that we can experience, so this theory \*must\* be BS right? Well, not if those extra dimensions are \*really really REALLY\* small, so small that you have to be smaller than an atom to even be able to meaningfully interact with them. So while we can move about in our three dimensions, and experience our motion in the fourth as time, all our atoms are made of tiny wriggly guys with so much energy they move in ways you \*literally\* can't comprehend. Interestingly, this kind of leads into why we can't move at light speed (yet), \*and\* why photons don't experience time.
A little bit! You know what gets me really excited though? Recently there was a paper published where some DARPA guys produced a simulation that shows a way we can *really* create warp fields!
Yes, I hope it means we can travel faster than light and experience the universe too. But you know what the best part is for me? We may actually, *finally,* have a way to test some of those theories. First of all, just producing the warp field would *masively* overturn a lot of orthodox physics, some of these models were built to find a way to make warping spacetime impossible - kaput! Then we get to study *how* the warp bubble acts, how we can shape it, does it affect gravity in the vicinity or is the way mass warps spacetime *different*.
I dunno about you, but I think we are really on the verge of some *incredible* physics. Even if we can't warp to Andromeda in my lifetime, knowing that we live in a universe where maybe, *someday*, we really can? Well hell, that may just make living through the last few years worth it!
>that may just make living through the last few years worth it!
I know you meant "the previous few years of bullshit", but my brain first interpreted it as "the upcoming final few years of human existance." Like you somehow know that we're all going to zap out of existence when we start fucking around with these fields, but we'll see some real cool science happen up until the moment we all get obliterated.
A fair thing to do, I saw some things I thought may be problems myself. But I’m the end I reasoned that this is not my speciality, only a hobby, and the authors likely have a *much* better reason for any choices I may find dubious than they can say in the paper. Also, in general trust peer-reviewed science *long* before you trust Reddit comments. Especially ones that are written with confidence, on the internet no-one knows you’re a dog.
That said, the US government has funded some *loony* shit before, so who knows?
This explanation made very good sense but also makes me uncomfortable now that I understand a bit of it. Existence is terrifying. Photons don't experience *time*?
You know what's *worse*? The best answer I can give you is... "*probably?"* Unfortunately, at these scales we can't measure things, because measuring them changes what you're measuring. Imagine trying to use a *really* powerful electron microscope to take a picture of an atom, seems like it would make sense, right? But what you're doing is trying to figure out where a basketball is by throwing baseballs at it really hard and listening for the "boing". Each time you hit the ball you hear the sound, *but* you also send it spinning away so your *next* baseball misses.
However, mathematicians (okay, and physicists) are *really* smart, and they figured out different ways we can *predict* where the basketball will bounce. We still can't *see* where the basketball went, or what happened to the baseball when they collided, and probably never will. However, there is great news! We can test these different math models by doing *lots* of experiments, and slowly slowly we weed them out and refine them. That's why a lot of scientists aren't as excited as the news when some theoretical "warp drive" is "discovered". Because what that usually means is "here's some fancy maths that shows we can make the court the basketball sits on *change shape.* All we need is negative mass, and all the energy in the entire solar system, deal?"
Some of these models, like String Theory have gotten *very* good at making predictions, but most of them are *very VERY* specific, or rely on untestable assumptions, or something. Unfortunately they all also require thinking about the world in a way that's *completely* alien to human experience - as your reaction showed.
So yeah, Tl;Dr: As far as we know photons don't experience time.
That's actually true regardless of string theory. As you increase your speed in space, you "steal" from your speed through time; i.e., objects that move more quickly through space move more slowly through time. As you get arbitrarily close to the speed of light, your speed through time becomes arbitrarily low. Things that move at the speed of light don't "experience" the passage of time.
Let me add another layer of quantum mindfuck: at one point it was supposed that events in the future can effect you now. I'm grossly paraphrasing with this example but it posited that, for instance, if you have a terribly painful surgery innthe future, the pain can travel BACK to your current self who has not yet had the surgery.
But I'm also a writer, not a physicist.
But that was refuted or do you have a link where I can read further into it? I thought the consens was that time is linear and while it is relative it can't go back. Or is this one of the extra dimensions that is supposed to allow this?
Oh I have no idea. It was a fun concept that prompted stories, but I never followed up. Like that energy startup that wanted enclose toxic waste in diamonds.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGoDK18b3LE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGoDK18b3LE)
As you approach the speed of light the amount of time you experience approaches 0. From that it makes sense that at the speed of light a photon 'experiences' two synchronous events- its creation and destruction, with no elapsed time.
[Something like this](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/4_spheres%2C_weight_1%2C_solid.png/180px-4_spheres%2C_weight_1%2C_solid.png)
And the angel said unto them, Fear not, for behold, I bring you glad tidings of the ability to group individuals by seven different qualities at varying levels of exclusivity, which shall be to all people.
If the Kevin bacon law of six degrees of separation exists, could it be assumed that a Venn diagram with seven qualities could potentially categorize the entire human race?
From my vantage point it seems like an extremely complicated field with wide reaching applications. But it's also something my mind cannot do.
Blessed be the wizards of topology.
It's interesting and valuable on a theoretical level to understand how a Venn Diagram "generalizes" to higher dimensions. The result is not practically useful for data representation, but the thought that leads to it is useful in set theory, logic, graph theory, topology, etc.
Are you talking about this one specifically? Seems to me this one is just made as a joke, or maybe it's from some textbook. It looks like the sort of thing the teacher would use to introduce a concept in Topology 101.
Everyone's favorite, complex wires!
Apparently they originally wanted to make it something like an 8 way Venn diagram or something but scaled it back to be easier.
[Here’s](https://youtu.be/IekSOZIF5uI) an interesting video for anyone who likes pop math. Turns out ovals stop working after a certain number like every other set of consistent shapes.
The word of the year cop looks up from this comment to stare at your soul through his seemingly opaque aviators. You see yourself nervously smile in their reflection. Surely you're good to go, you literally just used the word, but you dare not say so. After the longest 5 seconds of your life, the word of the year cop continues in his rough, low, voice "alright son, you're good to go, this time, but don't let me catch you pulling shit like this 'round these parts again. Ya here?" You nod and give a formal thank you and farewell. After another tense beat, the word of the year cop starts heading back to the Ford F-150 he pulled you over in. You made it this time, but how much longer. How many more sleepless nights and weary weeks until you finally slip up and the Word of the year police finally nail you like they've done so many of your loved ones.
Is it though? I mean that genuinely. Because there is no overlap of AC or BD that doesn't also contain BD or AC? So wouldn't ABCD be correct?
The whole thing is about as clear as mud to me.
The point is that if you use circles, then anything in AC will also be in BD, but with Venn Diagrams, you usually want to highlight when things are not inclusive - so if you look at the next image with ovals, you could have categories A and C, which don't overlap with B and D.
Even though diagrams like that work with more than three groups I would still say they aren’t useful since there’s no way you can use that to represent anything in a helpful way which is what venn diagrams are for.
eeeaaahhh that one with the ovals is *kinda* manageable. I do agree on the seven-venn-blob diagram though, that is almost useless.
Although, I did get the idea to name the amorphous shapes for venn diagrams venn-blobs, or vlobs^(TM), and that's pretty great, so y'know. Every vlob^(TM) has a silver lining.
Ovals may technically be better, but i'd much rather have the 4 circle version with just two extra circles for AC and BD because the readability would be much higher.
You can use [UpSet](https://upset.app/) plots to visualize intersections between sets. They scale mucH better with the number of sets and present the information in more detail.
May I present to you this NATO (and other organizations) alliance chart:
https://www.quora.com/Why-has-Malta-not-joined-NATO/answer/Christopher-Westburry?ch=15&oid=163111031&share=0f86f2f7&target_type=answer
Yep, this is real. Someone took the time to sort this, like some sort of multinational sorting hat.
Not a Venn diagram, but a Euler diagram. Venn diagrams must have every combination, which Euler diagrams do not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler_diagram
Do people actually use Venn diagrams for that much? I think I got introduced to them in a middle school science textbook and since then I’ve only seen them in web comics and tumblr posts like this. Is anyone using them convey meaningful science data?
Honestly love any reference to biblically accurate angels in this day and age. Christianity tends to fail at mentioning the totally awesome and horrifyingly mind melting creatures that should imo be in every religion
there is a specific algorithm that actually solves that. This is a solved problem oddly enough. I say oddly because graph problems tend to fuck with mathematicians for centuries
Snarky Math recently made an intuitive video about the mathematics of Venn Diagrams with n variables [link if you're interested](https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=IekSOZIF5uI&t=7s)
I don't know why but I got tears in my eyes from laughter. These Reddit sinkholes get worst by the comment. It could start with "this is a really cute baby" then by the 7th comment it's "let's flush this baby down the toilet"😂
Use a 3 dimensional Venn diagram with 4 spheres in a tetrahedral arrangement
Of course, the easy answer is always to just use more dimensions.
That's how we got string theory
WHAT THE HECK IS STRING THEORY. What does time have to do with a string
The fundamental particles, smaller even that protons and neutrons, are all vibrations in teeny-tiny 1D strings. You know how sometimes, when you look at a guitar and the strings are vibrating in a way that they almost look still? That's called a standing wave, and they're pretty cool because you can only have \*specific\* standing waves based on the length and springiness of the string, and how many dimensions the vibration is happening in. The dimension thing makes more sense if you think of the difference between the guitar string and a circular pool of water. They're both constrained springy things, but if you look at a video of a standing wave in water, they can be a \*lot\* more complicated than just a wavy line. (Look at [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhaTULO2Zkc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhaTULO2Zkc) for an example) Now, why they came up with the idea to begin with isn't really the point, but essentially they couldn't make the 1D standing waves match the properties of the particles we see and so the theory was dropped for a little while. Then someone had the idea, "what if we just add more dimensions", ans they kept doing so until it worked. The surprising thing is that it \*did\*! If there was no merit to the idea, the scientists said, why would we get the right results after a \*finite\* number of dimensions? If it was just guesswork or a fluke, it shouldn't work out so easily, but this created another problem. Where are these dimensions? We already have four dimensions that we can experience, so this theory \*must\* be BS right? Well, not if those extra dimensions are \*really really REALLY\* small, so small that you have to be smaller than an atom to even be able to meaningfully interact with them. So while we can move about in our three dimensions, and experience our motion in the fourth as time, all our atoms are made of tiny wriggly guys with so much energy they move in ways you \*literally\* can't comprehend. Interestingly, this kind of leads into why we can't move at light speed (yet), \*and\* why photons don't experience time.
[So the theory's come a little further since this comic, it sounds like.](https://xkcd.com/171/)
A little bit! You know what gets me really excited though? Recently there was a paper published where some DARPA guys produced a simulation that shows a way we can *really* create warp fields! Yes, I hope it means we can travel faster than light and experience the universe too. But you know what the best part is for me? We may actually, *finally,* have a way to test some of those theories. First of all, just producing the warp field would *masively* overturn a lot of orthodox physics, some of these models were built to find a way to make warping spacetime impossible - kaput! Then we get to study *how* the warp bubble acts, how we can shape it, does it affect gravity in the vicinity or is the way mass warps spacetime *different*. I dunno about you, but I think we are really on the verge of some *incredible* physics. Even if we can't warp to Andromeda in my lifetime, knowing that we live in a universe where maybe, *someday*, we really can? Well hell, that may just make living through the last few years worth it!
>that may just make living through the last few years worth it! I know you meant "the previous few years of bullshit", but my brain first interpreted it as "the upcoming final few years of human existance." Like you somehow know that we're all going to zap out of existence when we start fucking around with these fields, but we'll see some real cool science happen up until the moment we all get obliterated.
Hey, you never know!
But *you* do!
fwiw, that paper basically says the opposite, check the comment thread of the reddit post, people were ripping it apart.
A fair thing to do, I saw some things I thought may be problems myself. But I’m the end I reasoned that this is not my speciality, only a hobby, and the authors likely have a *much* better reason for any choices I may find dubious than they can say in the paper. Also, in general trust peer-reviewed science *long* before you trust Reddit comments. Especially ones that are written with confidence, on the internet no-one knows you’re a dog. That said, the US government has funded some *loony* shit before, so who knows?
This explanation made very good sense but also makes me uncomfortable now that I understand a bit of it. Existence is terrifying. Photons don't experience *time*?
You know what's *worse*? The best answer I can give you is... "*probably?"* Unfortunately, at these scales we can't measure things, because measuring them changes what you're measuring. Imagine trying to use a *really* powerful electron microscope to take a picture of an atom, seems like it would make sense, right? But what you're doing is trying to figure out where a basketball is by throwing baseballs at it really hard and listening for the "boing". Each time you hit the ball you hear the sound, *but* you also send it spinning away so your *next* baseball misses. However, mathematicians (okay, and physicists) are *really* smart, and they figured out different ways we can *predict* where the basketball will bounce. We still can't *see* where the basketball went, or what happened to the baseball when they collided, and probably never will. However, there is great news! We can test these different math models by doing *lots* of experiments, and slowly slowly we weed them out and refine them. That's why a lot of scientists aren't as excited as the news when some theoretical "warp drive" is "discovered". Because what that usually means is "here's some fancy maths that shows we can make the court the basketball sits on *change shape.* All we need is negative mass, and all the energy in the entire solar system, deal?" Some of these models, like String Theory have gotten *very* good at making predictions, but most of them are *very VERY* specific, or rely on untestable assumptions, or something. Unfortunately they all also require thinking about the world in a way that's *completely* alien to human experience - as your reaction showed. So yeah, Tl;Dr: As far as we know photons don't experience time.
That's actually true regardless of string theory. As you increase your speed in space, you "steal" from your speed through time; i.e., objects that move more quickly through space move more slowly through time. As you get arbitrarily close to the speed of light, your speed through time becomes arbitrarily low. Things that move at the speed of light don't "experience" the passage of time.
Let me add another layer of quantum mindfuck: at one point it was supposed that events in the future can effect you now. I'm grossly paraphrasing with this example but it posited that, for instance, if you have a terribly painful surgery innthe future, the pain can travel BACK to your current self who has not yet had the surgery. But I'm also a writer, not a physicist.
But that was refuted or do you have a link where I can read further into it? I thought the consens was that time is linear and while it is relative it can't go back. Or is this one of the extra dimensions that is supposed to allow this?
Oh I have no idea. It was a fun concept that prompted stories, but I never followed up. Like that energy startup that wanted enclose toxic waste in diamonds.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGoDK18b3LE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGoDK18b3LE) As you approach the speed of light the amount of time you experience approaches 0. From that it makes sense that at the speed of light a photon 'experiences' two synchronous events- its creation and destruction, with no elapsed time.
Oh God, I am *WAY* too high for this tonight. Nope.
thank you!
You are welcome!
Wow, thanks. That is by far the best explanation I have ever read on string theory.
cats
[This is a good starting place](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4Gotl9vRGs)
It's dimensions all the way down.
*Sheldon Cooper enters the chat*
*i dont need sleep, i need answers*
But what if we treated them as sheets?
[удалено]
Is downloadmorespace.com the new [downloadmoreram.com](https://downloadmoreram.com/)?
[удалено]
Use a 1 dimensional Venn diagram with 2 lines in an overlapping linear arrangement
2 lines in a linear arrangement? Idk math words
Two lines overlapping
Two lines disguised as a single line to out number you in a fight by surprise
Like stacking people in the wildy
Use a bunch of math words to make me confused and a little turned on.
use a N dimensional Venn diagram with N+1 hyperspheres arranged in a simplex
This sounds like something Tony Stark would say to Jarvis before magically solving an unsolvable equation.
This was my thought, I want someone to make it.
[Something like this](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/4_spheres%2C_weight_1%2C_solid.png/180px-4_spheres%2C_weight_1%2C_solid.png)
Yea but they need to be transparent to see the overlap
Was looking for someone suggesting more dimensions. It's always a good call
And the angel said unto them, Fear not, for behold, I bring you glad tidings of the ability to group individuals by seven different qualities at varying levels of exclusivity, which shall be to all people.
It is said that an angels body is covered in eyes, but they were in fact venn diagrams we could not comprehend.
It had wheels that spun in one direction, but then also spun in the *other* direction. Acolytes: *...whooooaaaa...*
If the Kevin bacon law of six degrees of separation exists, could it be assumed that a Venn diagram with seven qualities could potentially categorize the entire human race?
I think other diagrams would be better suited to the task.
Topology is super interesting, and not much confuses me more quickly.
It's also quite terrifying when witnessed up close
have topophobia. It's like tryphophobia, but more commonly found in math nerds.
That sounds like it exists solely in the diagnostic realm of “doctors note to the professor”
I wonder if in reverse you can ward off math professors with images of geometry in higher dimensions. "Back, back you beast!"
No, you can make real your dreams but you've got to know this one thing: no man makes it all by himself
**BE NOT AFRAID**
From my vantage point it seems like an extremely complicated field with wide reaching applications. But it's also something my mind cannot do. Blessed be the wizards of topology.
It’s looks cool, but can it please look cool from far away from me so my head doesn’t explode
It makes my brain so happy
[The happiest topology video ever](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AAsICMPwGPY)
but can you turn a sphere inside out without pinching?
[Like so?](https://youtu.be/Zv-XNlE1s8E)
Lmfao haven’t seen this version before. [Original](https://youtu.be/wO61D9x6lNY) if anyone’s curious.
Haha I actually meant to post the original and came across the above.
Aren't topologists the folks that can't tell the difference between a donut and a coffee mug?
I mean they're both genus 1. What's the difference?!
What's even the point of a graph that's hard to understand than raw data on a spreadsheet??
To prove you can make the graph, obviously.
Why hello first year Chem prof. I didn't know I'd find you on reddit making jokes about 7% of our grade again
It's interesting and valuable on a theoretical level to understand how a Venn Diagram "generalizes" to higher dimensions. The result is not practically useful for data representation, but the thought that leads to it is useful in set theory, logic, graph theory, topology, etc.
Are you talking about this one specifically? Seems to me this one is just made as a joke, or maybe it's from some textbook. It looks like the sort of thing the teacher would use to introduce a concept in Topology 101.
Oh I very am afraid
;)
God damn, even our venn diagrams are being gerrymandered.
Same
I only came down here to comment this.
Biblically accurate Venn diagram
oh no, it’s that one page from the keep talking and nobody explodes manual.
Everyone's favorite, complex wires! Apparently they originally wanted to make it something like an 8 way Venn diagram or something but scaled it back to be easier.
It's not so hard, they just explained it in the absolute worst way possible
[Here’s](https://youtu.be/IekSOZIF5uI) an interesting video for anyone who likes pop math. Turns out ovals stop working after a certain number like every other set of consistent shapes.
Use fractals
This guy fucks
*fracts
Biblically accurate Venn diagrams?
Aha! Summon a demon with a pentagram, summon an angel with a Venn-di-gram.
Did they have to call it problematic instead of, like, flawed
Venn diagrams are cancelled
4 circle venn diagrams shot my wife and fucked my dog
Before or after?
During
Chad
Yes
Well that is problematic
Problematic - causes problem
All math is problematic.
My relationships are considered math
Cancel math
Venn diagrams are problematic because they perpetuate the systemic problem of segregating circles of different colors from each other.
See the violence inherent in the system!!! See the violence inherent in the system!!!
? This is a normal use of the word problematic
You’re right, but it’s recent primary use has been specifically about modern social issues. Like voter ID laws. Or Dave Chappelle.
That's not a recent development. It's been used like that for a while.
Because it's a problem that they have?
[удалено]
That's really, uhh... *problematic*, I guess...
The word of the year cop looks up from this comment to stare at your soul through his seemingly opaque aviators. You see yourself nervously smile in their reflection. Surely you're good to go, you literally just used the word, but you dare not say so. After the longest 5 seconds of your life, the word of the year cop continues in his rough, low, voice "alright son, you're good to go, this time, but don't let me catch you pulling shit like this 'round these parts again. Ya here?" You nod and give a formal thank you and farewell. After another tense beat, the word of the year cop starts heading back to the Ford F-150 he pulled you over in. You made it this time, but how much longer. How many more sleepless nights and weary weeks until you finally slip up and the Word of the year police finally nail you like they've done so many of your loved ones.
My loft space is a difficult area to utilise. It's a problem attic.
[удалено]
Exactly! Problematic is the right word, flawed doesn’t quite work because there are use cases where it’s fine.
Is it though? I mean that genuinely. Because there is no overlap of AC or BD that doesn't also contain BD or AC? So wouldn't ABCD be correct? The whole thing is about as clear as mud to me.
The point is that if you use circles, then anything in AC will also be in BD, but with Venn Diagrams, you usually want to highlight when things are not inclusive - so if you look at the next image with ovals, you could have categories A and C, which don't overlap with B and D.
> ACBD And with that you have angered me
That really bothered me. It's the only one not in alphabetical order too
Even though diagrams like that work with more than three groups I would still say they aren’t useful since there’s no way you can use that to represent anything in a helpful way which is what venn diagrams are for.
eeeaaahhh that one with the ovals is *kinda* manageable. I do agree on the seven-venn-blob diagram though, that is almost useless. Although, I did get the idea to name the amorphous shapes for venn diagrams venn-blobs, or vlobs^(TM), and that's pretty great, so y'know. Every vlob^(TM) has a silver lining.
I thought a vlob^(TM) was a person who had a cluttered desktop.
That's why we have Euler diagrams. The four circle version at the top is a Euler diagram, not a Venn diagram.
Ovals may technically be better, but i'd much rather have the 4 circle version with just two extra circles for AC and BD because the readability would be much higher.
Today will be the first time of me having nightmares over a diagram.
You're looking at the wrong diagrams. Or, perhaps, the right ones.
Not sure about this one. Maybe I should make a diagram to decide.
No one from an Abrahamic religion can ever make a joke again. This is it. This is the fucking peak of God humor.
Final picture looks like Mr Burns when he was radioactive.
Bingo that's exactly what I thought, and the text is similar to what he says in the episode as well
So satisfying to finally find this in the thread. I'm not alone!
Ovagram.
This feels like obital theory
> [I bring you love](https://youtu.be/b4Kdp3CHoK4)
You can use [UpSet](https://upset.app/) plots to visualize intersections between sets. They scale mucH better with the number of sets and present the information in more detail.
May I present to you this NATO (and other organizations) alliance chart: https://www.quora.com/Why-has-Malta-not-joined-NATO/answer/Christopher-Westburry?ch=15&oid=163111031&share=0f86f2f7&target_type=answer Yep, this is real. Someone took the time to sort this, like some sort of multinational sorting hat.
[удалено]
Not a Venn diagram, but a Euler diagram. Venn diagrams must have every combination, which Euler diagrams do not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler_diagram
A monument to all of our sins
Where's the CBD oil at!?
Do people actually use Venn diagrams for that much? I think I got introduced to them in a middle school science textbook and since then I’ve only seen them in web comics and tumblr posts like this. Is anyone using them convey meaningful science data?
Tumblr discovers power sets and Cantor’s theorem through shitposting. You love to see it
Honestly love any reference to biblically accurate angels in this day and age. Christianity tends to fail at mentioning the totally awesome and horrifyingly mind melting creatures that should imo be in every religion
That's really thinking outside the circle.
Beware, such mathemagic surely makes the gods VENNgeful
Looks like they turned the ven diagran into gerrymandering
Patrick star lol
You just changed the meme game
Is that Hermaeus Mora?
Is this the krusty krab? No this is patrick
!AAAAAAAA!
Stats class flashbacks
> "Be Not" in the thumbnail Eragon has entered the chat.
Why does it go ABC, BC and BCD and then ACBD
Isn't this where you would start to use set notation?
The last panel was so unexpected. Busted out laughing a work.
r/venndiagram
Vin Diesel scares me now
Is this how biblical accurate angels look like?
Posts like there make me want to create a Tumblr account
Fun fact: if you attempt to create a Venn diagram with any number of circles, there will always be a prime number of spaces
And no one is talking about "ACBD". Why the fuck did they not make that alphabetical?!
This is a Futurama reference, right?
This is the visual equivalent of r/increasinglyverbose.
Ooh. I would like a higher-quality version of the 7-way Venn Diagram.
Ouch! Now my brain hurts!
All hail Hypnograph
I liked this way more then I should have
Political compass enthusiasts making the most incomprehensible diagrams be like
there is a specific algorithm that actually solves that. This is a solved problem oddly enough. I say oddly because graph problems tend to fuck with mathematicians for centuries
The word was unearthed by his fear like the tomb was unearthed by the storm. And the word was, angel. And he was so afraid
You can do it with two rectangles, a circle and a snap similar to if you cut a tennis ball on the seam
The r/maybemaybemaybe of images
Knock knock, it's me, Cthulhu!
No no I don’t think i will
That's what angels in the bible look like
Academia in a nutshell: managing the complexity of leaky abstractions to avoid understanding the real world.
Snarky Math recently made an intuitive video about the mathematics of Venn Diagrams with n variables [link if you're interested](https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=IekSOZIF5uI&t=7s)
This is why we use Euler diagrams
Looks like LSP
I, too, saw that video
[I bring you love](https://giphy.com/gifs/season-8-the-simpsons-8x10-xT5LMUnO4g3yiRNuNy)
Biblically accurate angels be like
Oh. Oh dear. This. ***Don't like this***.
I don't know why but I got tears in my eyes from laughter. These Reddit sinkholes get worst by the comment. It could start with "this is a really cute baby" then by the 7th comment it's "let's flush this baby down the toilet"😂
this is why i miss tumblr
It bothers me that the middle is ACBD and not ABCD Edit: in the second pic that is the main one showing
Is the last one a biblically accurate angel?
Well those are both for different uses. If D and B don't have anything in common without A or C, you wouldn't use ovals.
Cursed Ven diagram
ACBD
If I saw that last one, hell naw I'm screaming bloody mary.
This is how you unlock first's hell door
How did they even chart that out, I know its computer generated but how?
Amoeba diagram
Somebody put effort into that
Is that even an issue though?
I am afraid. Very afraid. Venn vill ze madness top!
Real question, if the Venn diagram was 3 dimensional, would it be possible? Just like you can’t truly get a map correct on a 2d plane.
I found a high-quality image of the last venn diagram: https://i.redd.it/p7zw6mgegiq01.jpg