Do you think a group isn’t an algebra? What, by your definitions make an “Algebra” different from a “Ring”?

What the fuck are you talking about? That’s incorrect as a matter of simple fact.

Associativity is a property possessed by a single operation, whereas distribution is a property possessed by pairs of operations. Non-associative algebras aren’t even generally ones that posses multiple operations, so how the hell do you think one implies the other?

Edit: actually, while we’re on it, your first comment was nonsense too; you don’t know what an identity is and you think that there’s no notion of inverses without an identity. While that’s generally the case there are exceptions like in Latin Squares, which describe the Cayley Tables of finite algebras for which every element can be operated with some other element to produce any one target element. In this way we can formulate a notion of “division” without using an identity.

I appreciate your encouragement; it’s an extremely rare occurrence when I discuss my ideas with others. I’ll think about what you’ve said and if I follow through I hope to remember to send you a message. I’m favouriting this comment so I can find it again.

Correct; multiplying by Ω doesn’t distribute over addition.

No, I’m pretty shy about my work in-person and I don’t like linking my online and IRL self. Do you have any recommendations for places to put my work?

Someone else had the same observation, but it is unital. Keep in mind that it isn’t associative; you can’t pull out the Omega like that.

No; 1 is the multiplicative identity.

1Ω=Ω, and for all x in C 1x=x. Thus, 1 fulfills the definition of an identity.

Okay, so I had a personal project for a long time that addressed the potential for an algebra that allowed for the multipicitive inverse of the additive identity.

In the context of the resulting non-associative algebra, 0/0=1, rather than 0.

For anyone wondering, the foundation goes as such: Ω0=1, Ωx=ΩΩ=Ω, x+Ω=Ω, Ω-Ω=Ω+Ω=0.

A fun consequence of this is the exponential function exp(x)=Σ((x^n)/n!) diverges at exp(Ω). Specifically you can reduce it to Σ(Ω), which when you try to evaluate it, you find that it evaluates to either 0 or Ω. This is particularly fitting, because e^x has a divergent limit at infinity. Specially, it approaches infinity when going towards the positive end and it approaches 0 when approaching the negative.

There’s more cool things you can do with that, but I’ll leave it there for now.

The democratic party is a coalition. It has wings that range from progressive to conservative. The reason they play it safe is because candidates need to be palatable to enough of the constituents to pass their primaries. This is also why local democratic parties are much more likely to have more cohesion.

It’s not enough, but I’ve seen more of it from the DNC than I have you.

Ah yes. Fascists taking over the county? Time to blame their opposition. Help their opposition? Nah, I’d rather blame them.

This is why we’re losing. If your political movement can’t have allies who aren’t strictly members, then you’ll lose. If you push people away who may disagree but are sympathetic, you’ll lose.

This is why the fascists are winning. They are welcoming everyone who they can stomach until the second they don’t need to. This is why tankies always get us in the end; because they can pretend for as long as they need to use us, and then discard us without qualm.

Left-libertarians in general and Anarchists in particular need to learn to not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. Because RN everyone else is letting the imperfect become the ally of evil.

If you decide to call Nazis centrists, or vice-versa, you’re just alienating people. I’m constantly amazed at how far people have managed to shove their heads up their own asses on this site.

A little, yeah, oddly enough.

Things I’ve learned: the people in this community hate bluesky on principle, their principles are insular and toxic, and they can’t read.

This is why people aren’t going to mastadon more than Bluesky; because y’all’re insufferable. I made the comment in context of the post, so why would you ignore it?

Politically speaking, I don’t believe there’s such thing as “right” or “left” except in the relative sense. Even then it’s questionable.

Edit: I’m really curious about what people downvoting think it fundamentally means for there to be an absolute political “center” from which there is an objective “right” wing and an objective “left” wing. Furthermore, I’d like to know what advantages this model has that makes you value it so much.

deleted by creator

The fact that you or anyone thinks that matters is part of the problem. Not every federated site needs to be federated with every other federated site. That’s half the point of federation.

Snubbing bluesky is a great way to get people to not take you seriously. When you’re making a recruitment thing like this you need to remember you’re trying to draw in people who don’t fully agree with you.

No.