Not sure if serious or just stupid

Until you realize that thinking someone’s personality is superior to yours makes you insecure, and they dump you. Then you feel twice as crappy, but also have no incentive to change since you know you can’t win them back. And then your life devolves into mental and physical self hate.

That's not what the Planck length implies.

This implies that everyone binge watched in one sitting never pausing the show

Based off of a fabricated story from a random tweet yeah hahaha I swear people will believe anything they see on twitter...

Two classes? What two classes? OP specified "numbers between 0 and 1" and "[numbers] from 0 to infinity". The class involved (entailed, even) is "numbers on the number line". In other words, reals. That's one class. That's the basis of the comparison.

Both specified ranges are uncountably infinite.

Here's an easier comparison: There are as many numbers between 0 and 1 as there are between 1 and infinity. It's an easier comparison because now both sets are strictly between their bounds, the two sets don't overlap, and the bijection formula is simpler.

If A is a real between 0 and 1, and B is the matching real greater than 1, then the mapping is:

A -> 1 / B

Also

B -> 1 / A

That's it. For every real number larger than one, there exists exactly one matching number between zero and one, and vice-versa. No exceptions, no excuses, nothing left unaccounted.

The size of the two sets are exactly the same, even though the extents of the two sets are wildly different.

Also also, that's the comparison OP meant to express. Even so, the comparison posted still holds true. It just that, instead of mapping A to the inverse of B, we map A to the inverse of one more than B.

So, no, we don't have to compare reals on one side and rationals on the other, or anything else where we'd have to specify two classes. Those comparisons can be made, of course, but they're not relevant to the post.

It takes different real numbers to make it all the way out to infinity, but it doesn't take more of them. There are exactly as many real numbers greater than 1 as there are between 0 and 1.

[removed]

Glad I never needed to "sneak out". If I wanted to go out, my parents would just be like "Sure, have fun, just remember to lock the door when you get home."

A flock of vampires should be called a "coven".

Man you just wanted to know if people synced up on Netflix and you’re getting totally reamed here🤣

Not all of us are snarky sht talkers🥲 As somebody who doesn’t watch tv very often I hadn’t even thought about live tv, though that seems silly because it’s too obvious.

[removed]

93 billion light years across that we know of

Relative to Paul Wight, that house is much smaller than it is relative to Kevin Hart.

When it comes to the universe, relativity to the observer is immensely important. So much so they granted the idea the highest military rank possible when coining the term General Relativity.

[removed]

Yea they’re nightmares we’re just about getting their head bashed in by their neighbor or getting eaten alive by a saber tooth.

Yeah you're absolutely right. It becomes abundantly clear when you replace "thrive" with one of its synonyms like "prosper" that it doesn't really work either way. Thanks for bringing it up!

I believe I said you don't need to know the size of it. Let's say a house is 1000 square feet. It will be that size for everyone regardless of how big they are. Your may be able to fit more of one person in it than another, but that doesn't change the size of the house.

awwww, that's no fun. /s

A friend got me a bidet as a chrisas present like 5 years ago. Changed my life completely.

Normal toilet experiences just feel SO much worse in comparison

I think finding a one to one relation between elements of one set to elements of another set is a convincing way to know if they have the same amount of elements without counting them. Like if you have two heaps of rocks, you could make two lines of rocks where rocks are side by side and if both lines end together, both sets have the same amount of rocks.

Doing the same with infinite sets is useful because we can't count the elements, but might be able to find a function that associates each element of one set to one and only one element of the other. (Regarding the rocks example, every possible way to put them side by side is such a function.)

For example, there are as many positive integers as positive and negative integers because f(x) = (x % 2) * (-x / 2 - 1 / 2) + (1 - x % 2) * (x / 2) from 0 to ∞ gives 0, -1, 1, -2, 2, -3, 3, ...

Now regarding uncountable infinite sets like the real numbers, someone else in the comment showed that ]0, 1] has the same amount of elements as [1, ∞ [ using f(x) = 1 / x. And regarding what we're actually looking for, let's say [0, 1] has the same amount of elements as ℝ, I didn't really pay attention but this seems convincing.

you have to use a different 'correspondence' function for (0,1) and (1,3), which in this case is 2*(x+1/2).

notice how __every__ number in one set has to be matched with __exactly__ one of the other set.

As a 6+ I'll tell anyone that'll listen that my dream is to build a house that's 15% up sized on every 'standard' dimensional thing like cabinets, countertops, etc.

Used to happen all the time before on-demand and streaming services. Still happens, too, with royal weddings and World Cup finals.

[removed]

Why is that? Why does the whole world have privacy in public restrooms but here in the US we're like full view in every stall!