Algorithm (from the name of Persian mathematician Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi) is an exact step-by-step description of how to solve some type of a problem. Algorithms are basically what [programming](programming.md) is all about: we tell [computers](computer.md), in very exact ways (with [programming languages](programming_language.md)), how to solve problems -- we write algorithms. But algorithms don't have to be just computer programs, they are simply exact instruction for solving problems.
Algorithm (from the name of Persian mathematician Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi) is an exact step-by-step description of how to solve some type of a problem. Algorithms are basically what [programming](programming.md) is all about: we tell [computers](computer.md), in very exact ways (with [programming languages](programming_language.md)), how to solve problems -- we write algorithms. But algorithms don't have to be just computer programs, they are simply exact instruction for solving problems. Although maybe not as obvious, [mathematics](math.md) is also a lot about creating algorithms because it strives to give us exact instructions for solving problems -- a mathematical formula usually tells us what we have to do to compute something, so in a way it is an algorithm too.
Cooking recipes are commonly given as an example of a non-computer algorithm, though they rarely contain branching ("if condition holds then do...") and loops ("while a condition holds do ..."), the key features of algorithms. The so called wall-follower is a simple algorithm to get out of any [maze](maze.md) which doesn't have any disconnected walls: you just pick either a left-hand or right-hand wall and then keep following it. You may write a crazy algorithm basically for any kind of problem, e.g. for how to clean a room or how to get a [girl](woman.md) to bed, but it has to be **precise** so that anyone can execute the algorithm just by blindly following the steps; if there is any ambiguity, it is not considered an algorithm; a vague, imprecise "hint" on how to find a solution (e.g. "the airport is somewhere in this general direction.") we rather call a [heuristic](heuristic.md). Heuristics are useful too and they may be utilized by an algorithm, e.g. to find a precise solution faster, but from programmer's point of view algorithms, the PRECISE ways of finding solutions, are the basics of everything.
Competition is a situation of conflict in which several entities try to [overpower](fight_culture.md) or otherwise win over each other. It is the opposite of [collaboration](collaboration.md). Competition is connected to pursuing [self interest](self_interest.md).
**Competition is the absolute root cause of most [evil](evil.md) in society. Society must never be based on competition**. Unfortunately our society has decided to do the exact opposite with [capitalism](capitalism.md), the glorification of competition -- this will very likely lead to the [destruction of our society](collapse.md), possibly even to the destruction of all [life](life.md).
**Competition is the absolute root cause of most [evil](evil.md) in society. Society must never be based on competition**. Unfortunately our society has decided to do the exact opposite with [capitalism](capitalism.md), the glorification of competition -- this will most certainly lead to the [destruction of our society](collapse.md), possibly even to the destruction of all [life](life.md).
Competition is to society what a drug is to an individual: competition makes a situation become better quickly and start achieving technological "progress" but for the price of things going downwards from then on, competition quickly degenerates and kills other values in society such as altruism and morality; society that decides to make unnaturally fast "progress" and base itself on competition is equivalent to someone deciding to take steroids to grow muscles quickly -- corporations that arise in technologically advanced society take over the world just like muscle cancer that grows from taking steroids. A little bit of competition can be helpful in small doses just as painkillers can on occasion help lower suffering of an individual, but one has to be extremely careful to not take too many of them... even smoking a joint from time to time can have a positive effect, however with [capitalism](capitalism.md) our society has become someone who has started to take heroin and only live for that drug alone, take as much of it as he can. Invention of bullshit jobs just to keep competition running, extreme growing hostility of people, [productivity cults](productivity_cult.md), overworking, wage slavery, extreme waste that's destroying our environment, all of these are signs our society is dying from overdose, living from day to day, trying to get a few bucks for the next dose of its drug.
Competition is to society what a drug is to an individual: competition makes a situation become better quickly and start achieving technological "progress" but for the price of things going downwards from then on, competition quickly degenerates and kills other values in society such as [altruism](altruism.md) and [morality](morality.md); society that decides to make unnaturally fast "progress" and base itself on competition is equivalent to someone deciding to take steroids to grow muscles quickly -- [corporations](corporation.md) that arise in technologically advanced society take over the world just like muscle cancer that grows from taking steroids. A little bit of competition can be helpful in small doses just as painkillers can on occasion help lower suffering of an individual, but one has to be extremely careful to not take too many of them... even smoking a joint from time to time can have a positive effect, however with [capitalism](capitalism.md) our society has become someone who has started to take heroin and only live for that drug alone, take as much of it as he can. Invention of bullshit jobs just to keep competition running, extreme growing hostility of people, [productivity cults](productivity_cult.md), overworking, wage slavery, extreme waste that's destroying our environment, all of these are signs our society is dying from overdose, living from day to day, trying to get a few bucks for the next dose of its drug.
Is all competition bad? Competition is not bad as a concept, it may for example be used in [genetic programming](genetic_programming.md) to evolve good computer programs. People also have a NEED for at least a bit of competition as this need was necessary to survive in the past -- this need has to be satisfied, so we create artificial, mostly harmless competition e.g. with [games](game.md) and sports. This kind of competition is not so bad as long as we are aware of the dangers of overapplying it. What IS bad is making competition the basis of a society, in a [good society](less_retarded_society.md) people must never compete for basic needs such as food, shelter or health care. Furthermore after sufficient technological progress, competition is no longer just a bad basis for society, it becomes a fatal one because society gains means for complete annihilation of all life such as nuclear weapons or factories poisoning our environment that in the heat of competition will sooner or later destroy the society. I.e. in a technologically advanced society it is necessary to give up competition so as to prevent own destruction.
Is all competition bad? As a mechanism in society yes. But as concept outside these boundaries it may on occasion be good, it may for example be used in [genetic programming](genetic_programming.md) to evolve good computer programs. People also have a NEED for at least a bit of competition as this need was necessary to survive in the past and is hard wired in us -- this need has to be satisfied, so we create artificial, mostly harmless competition e.g. with [games](game.md) and sports -- please note that people playing games doesn't mean competition is part of basic mechanics of society (this overlook in the thought process often happens), just as singing in a shower isn't part of how democracy works for example. This kind of competition happening between people (but not withing mechanisms of society) is not so bad as long as we are aware of the dangers of overapplying it (just as we have to be careful with any kind of drug for example). What IS bad is making competition the basis of a society, in a [good society](less_retarded_society.md) people must never compete for basic needs such as food, shelter or health care. People must never see other people as enemies. Furthermore after sufficient technological progress, competition is no longer just a bad basis for society, it becomes a fatal one because society gains means for complete annihilation of all life such as nuclear weapons or factories poisoning our environment that in the heat of competition will sooner or later destroy the society. I.e. in a technologically advanced society it is necessary to give up competition so as to prevent own destruction. Sadly we are probably [past the point](capitalist_singularity.md) now.
Why is competition so prevalent if it is so bad? Because it is natural and it has been with us since we as life arised. It is extremely hard to let go of such a basic instinct but it has to be done not only because competition has become obsolete and is now only artificially sustaining suffering without bringing in any benefits (we, humans, have basically already won the evolution), but because, as has been said, sustaining competition is now fatal.
Why is competition so prevalent if it is so bad? Because it is natural and it has been with us since we as [life](life.md) came to existence. It is immensely difficult to let go of such a basic instinct but it has to be done not only because competition has become obsolete and is now only artificially sustaining suffering without bringing in any benefits (we, humans, have basically already won at evolution), but because, as has been said, sustaining competition is now simply fatal.
How to achieve letting go of competition in society? The only way is a voluntary choice achieved through our intellect, i.e. through [education](education.md). Competition is something we naturally want to do, but we can rationally decide not to do it once we see and understand it is bad -- such behavior is already occurring, for example if we know someone is infected with a sexually transmitting disease, we rationally overcome the strong natural instinct to have sex with him.
@ -24,7 +24,9 @@ Here is a comparison of the Creative Commons licenses/waivers, from most free (b
| Creative Commons Attribution NoValue | CC BY NV | no | yes | yes | no | no |forced | yes | [joke](joke.md) license by Question Copyright :) |
| none (all rights reserved) | | NO! :((( |NO! :( |NO! :( |NO! :( |FUCK YOU|FUCK YOU | FUCK YOU | [proprietary](proprietary.md) fascist option, prohibits everything, DO NOT USE |
There Creative Commons "paradox": there seems to be a curious pattern noticeable in the world of Creative Commons licensed works (and possibly [free culture](free_culture.md) and [free software](free_software.md) in general) -- the phenomenon is that **the shittier the [art](art.md), the more restrictive license it will have**. { I noticed this on opengameart but then found it basically applies everywhere. ~drummyfish } Upon closer inspection it doesn't look so surprising after all: more restrictive licenses are used as a slow and careful transition from "all right reserved" world, i.e. they are used by newcomers and noobs who fear that if they don't enforce attribution people will immediately exploit it. More skilled people who have spent some time in the world of free art and published more things already know this doesn't happen and they know that less restrictive licenses are just better in all aspects.
Out of Creative Commons licenses/waivers **always use [CC0](cc0.md)**, that's the only one aligned with [our goals](lrs.md), it's the one that's closest to completely rejecting any control over the work. Even though legally and practically there probably won't be such a large difference between CC0 and let's say CC BY, the mental jump to absolute public domain is important (small step for lawyer, huge leap for freedom) -- it's known that people who use the imperfect licenses such as CC BY SA still feel a small grip and authority over their work, they still have to overlook that the license "isn't violated" and sometimes even start making trouble (see e.g. the infamous meltdown of David Revoy over his "moral rights being violated with [NFTs](nft.md)" despite his work being CC BY SA { Thanks to a friend for finding this. ~drummyfish }). Don't do this, just let go. If you love it, let it go.
There **Creative Commons license paradox**: there seems to be a curious pattern noticeable in the world of Creative Commons licensed works (and possibly [free culture](free_culture.md) and [free software](free_software.md) in general) -- the phenomenon is that **the shittier the [art](art.md), the more restrictive license it will have**. { I noticed this on opengameart but then found it basically applies everywhere. ~drummyfish } Upon closer inspection it doesn't look so surprising after all: more restrictive licenses are used as a slow and careful transition from "all right reserved" world, i.e. they are used by newcomers and noobs who fear that if they don't enforce attribution people will immediately exploit it. More skilled people who have spent some time in the world of free art and published more things already know this doesn't happen and they know that less restrictive licenses are just better in all aspects.
@ -70,6 +70,8 @@ TODO: more details, history, where to measure (web vs Mensa vs SAT etc.)
{ Also consider this: even if you're average, or even a bit below average, you're still [homo](gay.md) sapiens, so as long as you're not a [feminist](feminism.md) or [capitalist](capitalism.md) you'll always be the absolute top organism in intelligence, a member of by far the absolutely most intelligent species that ever appeared on [Earth](earth.md), your intelligence greatly surpasses great majority of living organisms. If you are able to read this, you already possess the great genius, you mastered language and are among the top 0.1%, there's no need to compare yourself to others and aim to be in 0.01% instead of 0.02%. Rather think about what good to do with the gift of reason you've been given. ~drummyfish }
{ It's still more and more complicated the more you think of it, even for example success in mathematics may sometimes depend less on pure math skills and more on non-mathematical kind of intelligence, e.g. that of observation skills and communication -- that's what academia is about. Yes, you need some creativity, but the ability to quickly understand ideas of others may sometimes be superior, an idea you "steal" from someone else is as useful as idea you came up with yourself, you need to catch many ideas of others and connect them together; on the other hand struggling with communication is sometimes simply like not speaking a common language at all. Thinking back I for one have always been quite retarded at understanding what others wanted to say, even simple things, so in classes I frequently wouldn't understand what was being taught while others understood, but it wasn't because I wouldn't understand the concept itself, I rather didn't understand the way the teacher explained it because (I think) I think differently about things. When we were given tasks to solve on our own, I usually beat my classmates because that was only about creative intelligence, not communication, and in this I think I was better than most of my peers. I didn't go for PhD later on while some of my classmates did -- TBH I don't think it's because they were necessarily more intelligent in general (many of them for sure were), but because they felt better in this world of communication, sharing papers, talking to others, understanding their ideas and collaborating, they had the "better mix" of intelligence for today's academic world -- this I always had problems with, so it contributed to my decision to not go there. This is just to show that this world is quite complex. ~drummyfish }
**Fun fact**: in some US countries idiots and similar low IQ level classes are legally prohibited from voting :D
It's been observed that the **IQ of a group** is roughly equal to the IQ of its least intelligent member divided by the number of group members.
@ -96,7 +98,7 @@ If you are [American](usa.md) (or just someone else who happened to take the tes
If you play [chess](chess.md) and your [Elo](elo.md) rating (in any of the popular pools) is *X*, it's been stated that your IQ is at least *(X - 1000) / 10*. This is only a lower bound, it will approach your real IQ only if you dedicate great deal of your life to chess and reach very close to your true potential. But yeah, this kinda funny and super inaccurate.
IQ is a predictor of achieved education, so if you went to University, you can kinda estimate your IQ too, but not that accurately. If you have a degree in [math](math.md) or [physics](physics.md) your IQ is most likely at least 130, 135 and 140 for bachelor's, master's and [PhD](phd.md) respectively. This is similar for other "hard"/STEM/math-like fields like mechanical engineering, chemistry or [computer science](compsci.md) (webdev, software engineering and so on doesn't count though) -- maybe just subtract 5 from the lower bound here. This doesn't hold for shitty meme "universities" like those in India and for meme studies like "management" or "computer security without math" where they just teach you how to install an antivirus. For humanities and "soft" shittier fields like psychology or arts a degree says your IQ is maybe above 110. Also these estimates don't hold for degrees given to [women](woman.md) after they year 2000, sorry -- they now give degrees to women just for being a woman who tries to get a degree, you'll have to estimate your IQ another way. If you have a degree in [gender studies](gender_studies.md), your IQ is below 30.
IQ is a predictor of achieved education, so if you were good at school -- e.g. won some physics competitions -- you can draw some conclusions. If you went to University, you can kinda estimate your IQ, though not that accurately. If you have a degree in [math](math.md) or [physics](physics.md) your IQ is most likely at least 130, 135 and 140 for bachelor's, master's and [PhD](phd.md) respectively. This is similar for other "hard"/"STEM"/math-like fields like mechanical engineering, chemistry or [computer science](compsci.md) (webdev, software engineering and so on don't count though) -- maybe just subtract 5 or 10 from the lower bound here. This doesn't hold for shitty meme "universities" like those in India and for meme studies like "IT management" or "computer security without math" where they just teach you how to install antiviruses. For humanities and "soft" shittier fields like psychology or arts a degree says your IQ is maybe above 110. Also these estimates don't hold for degrees given to [women](woman.md) or minorities after they year 2000, sorry -- they now give degrees to women and blacks just for showing effort, you'll have to estimate your IQ another way. If you have a degree in [gender studies](gender_studies.md), your IQ is below 30.
**The LRS test**: Here is a quick but extremely accurate IQ estimate. Let *x* be the approximate amount to which you agree with [LRS](lrs.md), expressed in percents. You IQ (SD 15) is approximately *2 * x*. If you can't compute that, subtract 200.
TODO: relationship of logic and math, which comes first etc.
**Power of logic is limited** (for more please read this excellent resource: http://humanknowledge.net/Thoughts.html) -- though logic is the strongest, most stable platform our knowledge can ever stand on, it is still not infinitely powerful and has its limits, despite what any reddit [atheist](atheism.md) tells you or even what he believes. This sadly [dooms](doom.md) us to certain eternal inability to uncover all there is, we just have to accept from a certain point we are blind and not even logic will help us. [Kurt Godel](godel.md) mathematically proved with his [incompleteness theorems](incompleteness.md) that we simply won't be able to prove everything, not even the validity of formal tools we use to prove things. See also [knowability](knowability.md). Even in just intuitive terms: on the lowest level we start using logic to talk about itself, i.e. if we e.g. try to prove that "logic works" using logical arguments, we cannot ever succeed, because if we succeed, the proven fact that "logic works" relies on the fact that logic indeed works; if it perhaps doesn't work and we used it to prove its own validity, we might have simply gotten a wrong result (it's just as if we trust someone saying "I am not a liar", he may as well be lying about not being a liar). By this logic even the previous sentence may or may not actually be true, we simply don't know, sometimes the best we can do is simply hold on to stronger or weaker beliefs. Logic furthermore cannot talk about many things; it can tell us how the world works but e.g. not WHY it works like it does.
**Power of logic is limited** (for more please read this excellent resource: http://humanknowledge.net/Thoughts.html) -- though logic is the strongest, most stable platform our knowledge can ever stand on, it is still not infinitely powerful and has its limits, despite what any reddit [atheist](atheism.md) tells you or even what he believes. This sadly [dooms](doom.md) us to certain eternal inability to uncover all there is, we just have to accept from a certain point we are blind and not even logic will help us. [Kurt Godel](godel.md) (along with others, e.g. Tarski) mathematically proved with his [incompleteness theorems](incompleteness.md) that we simply won't be able to prove everything, not even the validity of formal tools we use to prove things. See also [knowability](knowability.md). Even in just intuitive terms: on the lowest level we start using logic to talk about itself, i.e. if we e.g. try to prove that "logic works" using logical arguments, we cannot ever succeed, because if we succeed, the proven fact that "logic works" relies on the fact that logic indeed works; if it perhaps doesn't work and we used it to prove its own validity, we might have simply gotten a wrong result (it's just as if we trust someone saying "I am not a liar", he may as well be lying about not being a liar). By this logic even the previous sentence may or may not actually be true, we simply don't know, sometimes the best we can do is simply hold on to stronger or weaker beliefs. Imagine we have a function *isTrue(x)* that automatically checks if statement *x* is true (returns *true* or *false*), now image we have statement *y* that says *isTrue(y) = false*; our *isTrue* function will fail to correctly evaluate statement *y* (it can't return neither *true* nor *false*, both will lead to contradiction) -- this is a proof that there can never be a computable function that decides whether something is true or not. Logic furthermore cannot talk about many things; it can tell us how the world works but e.g. not WHY it works like it does. Checkmate [atheists](atheist.md).
@ -10,7 +10,9 @@ Mathematics as a whole is constructed with [logic](logic.md) from some basic sys
On the other hand, one does not have to be a math [PhD](phd.md) in order to be a good programmer in most fields. Sure, knowledge and overview of advanced mathematics is needed to excel, to be able to spot and sense elegant solutions and to innovate in big ways, but beyond these essentials that anyone can learn with a bit of will it's really more about just not being afraid of math, accepting and embracing the fact that it permeates what we do and studying it when the study of a new topic is needed.
**The power of math is limited** because the power of [logic](logic.md) itself is limited. In 1932 [Kurt Godel](godel.md) mathematically proved, with his [incompleteness theorems](incompleteness.md), that (basically) there are logical truths which math itself can never prove, and that, put in a simplified way, "math itself cannot prove its own consistency" (which killed so called Hilbert's program which sought to do exactly that). This is related to the limited power of [computers](computer.md) due to [undecidability](undecidability.md) (there are problems a computer can never decide), proven by [Alan Turing](turing.md).
**The power of math is limited** because the power of [logic](logic.md) itself is limited. In 1930s this actually caused a big crisis in mathematics, connected to so called Hilbert's program which aimed to establish a completely "bulletproof" system to be the foundation of mathematics, however in 1932 [Kurt Godel](godel.md) mathematically proved, with his [incompleteness theorems](incompleteness.md), that (basically) there are logical truths which math itself can never prove, and that, put in a simplified way, "math itself cannot prove its own consistency", which of course killed Hilbert's program; since then we simply know we will never have a logically perfect system. This is related to the limited power of [computers](computer.md) due to [undecidability](undecidability.md) (there are problems a computer can never decide), proven by [Alan Turing](turing.md).
**What is mathematics really about?** Elementary school dropouts think math is about calculations and [numbers](number.md) -- sure, these are a big part of it but mathematicians mostly give a different answer. The core and [art](art.md) of high mathematics is constructing **[proofs](proof.md)**, but it also involves exploration, a common theme is e.g. **[generalization](generalization.md)**: mathematicians love to take already existing knowledge and patterns and extend them into other domains, find more general rules of which currently known rules are only a [special case](special_case.md). By this they are discovering universal laws and find that even seemingly unrelated concepts may have a lot in common.
- for potential weaker links to minimalism also check out [retro](retro.md)/[old](old.md)/[boomer](boomer.md) tech, [salvage computing](salvage_computing.md), [degrowth](degrowth.md), [Amish](amish.md), [technophobia](technophobia.md), [lightweight](lightweight.md) software, [fantasy consoles](fantasy_console.md) (sadly mostly pseudominimalism), communities around [plain text](plain_text.md), [pubnixes](pubnix.md), [IRC](irc.md) and so on.
- for potential weaker links to minimalism also check out [retro](retro.md)/[old](old.md)/[boomer](boomer.md) tech, [salvage computing](salvage_computing.md), [degrowth](degrowth.md), [Amish](amish.md), [technophobia](technophobia.md), [lightweight](lightweight.md) software, [fantasy consoles](fantasy_console.md) (sadly mostly pseudominimalism), communities around [plain text](plain_text.md), [pubnixes](pubnix.md), some GNU/Linux distros (e.g. [Arch](arch.md), [Gentoo](gentoo.md), KISS Linux, ...), [IRC](irc.md) communities and so on.
- ...
Under [capitalism](capitalism.md) technological minimalism is suppressed in the mainstream as it goes against [corporate](corporation.md) interests, i.e. those of having monopoly control over technology, even if such technology is "[FOSS](foss.md)" (which then becomes just a cool brand, see [openwashing](openwashing.md)). We may, at best, encounter a "shallow" kind of minimalism, so called [pseudominimalism](pseudominimalism.md) which only tries to make things appear minimal, e.g. aesthetically, and hides ugly overcomplicated internals under the facade. [Apple](apple.md) is infamous for this [shit](shit.md).
{ Sowwy I'm not a mathematician, please excuse if I'm wrong, lemme know if you spot something, thank u <3~drummyfish}
WIP kind of
Numbers (from Latin *numerus* coming from a Greek word meaning "to distribute") are one of the most elementary [mathematical](math.md) objects, building stones serving most often as quantitative values (that is: telling count, size, length, order etc.), in higher math also used in much more [abstract](abstraction.md) ways which have only distant relationship to traditional counting. Examples of numbers are minus [one](one.md) half, [zero](zero.md), [pi](pi.md) or [i](i.md). Numbers constitute the basis and core of mathematics and as such they sit almost at the [lowest level](low_level.md) of it, i.e. most other things such as algebra, [functions](function.md) and [equations](equation.md) are built on top of numbers or require numbers to even be examined. In modern mathematics numbers themselves aren't on the absolute bottom of the foundations though, they are themselves built on top of [sets](set.md), as set theory is most commonly used as a basis of whole mathematics, however for many purposes this is just a formalism that's of practical interest only to some mathematicians -- on the other hand numbers just cannot be avoided anywhere, by a mathematician or just a common folk. The word *number* may be the first that comes to our mind when we say *mathematics*. The area of [number theory](number_theory.md) is particularly focused on examining numbers (though it's examining almost exclusively integer numbers because these seem to have the deepest pattern related e.g. to divisibility).
@ -103,11 +101,11 @@ Now we may start working with the [data](data.md), let's for example notice we c
@ -127,7 +125,9 @@ Here patterns start to show, for example the level one of the tree are all prime
There are different types of numbers, in mathematics we classify them into [sets](set.md) (if we further also consider the operations we can perform with numbers we also sort them into algebras and structures like [groups](group.md), [fields](field.md) or [rings](ring.md)). Though we can talk about finite sets of numbers perfectly well (e.g. [modulo](mod.md) arithmetic, [Boolean algebra](boolean_algebra.md) etc.), we are firstly considering [infinite](infinity.md) sets (curiously some of these infinite sets can still be considered "bigger" than other infinite sets, e.g. by certain logic there is more real numbers than rational numbers, i.e. "fractions"). Some of these sets are subsets of others, some overlap and so forth. Here are some notable number sets (note that a list can potentially not capture all relationships between the sets):
- **all**: Anything conceivable as a number, even by stretch. E.g. [zero](zero.md), minus [infinity](infinity.md) or aleph one.
- **[transfinite numbers](transfinite_number.md)**: Numbers that are in a sense "infinite", used to compare objects that are infinite in size (e.g. number sets themselves). E.g. omega, omega plus ten or aleph one.
- **[transfinite (infinite) numbers](transfinite_number.md)**: Numbers that are in a sense "infinite", used to compare objects that are infinite in size (e.g. number sets themselves). E.g. omega, beth two or aleph one.
- **[surreal numbers](surreal_number.md)**, **\*R: hyperreal numbers**, **superreal numbers**, ...: Various extensions of real numbers, include also infinitesimals and some transfinite numbers.
- **[infinitesimals](infinitesimal.md)**: Are closer to zero than any real number without actually being zero, i.e. "infinitely small" numbers, play big role in [calculus](calculus.md). E.g. 0.000...1 (with infinitely many 0 digits before the 1).
- **Qp: [p-adic numbers](p_adic_number.md)**: Alternative way of generalizing rational numbers; p-adics are quite mindblowing as they may have infinitely many digits to the left side (for which they are sometimes called *leftist numbers*), there are numbers that are their own squares without either being 1 or 0, they also contain negative numbers and fractions without having to add extra symbols. There are different kinds of p-adic number sets for different *p*s, e.g. 10-adic, 3-adic and so on (prime number *p*s are chosen for good properties). E.g. (10-adic) ...333.33, ...87187, ...11112 etc.
- **H: [quaternions](quaternion.md)**: A sum of real number, imaginary number and two other kinds of numbers, forming a number in four dimensional space. E.g. 1 + i + j - k, 50 - 0.6k or 2i + 7j.
- **C: [complex](complex_number.md)**: A sum of real and imaginary number, forming a number in two dimensional plane. E.g. 3 + 2i, 0.5 - 13i or 100i.
@ -145,6 +145,7 @@ There are different types of numbers, in mathematics we classify them into [sets
- **odd**: Aren't even. E.g. 1, -13 or 1023.
- **N0: [natural](natural_number.md) (with zero)**: E.g. 0, 16 or 1000.
- **[Fibonacci](fibonacci.md)**: Are part of a sequence that starts with 0 and 1 and continues with numbers each of which is the sum of previous two. E.g. 0, 3 or 89.
- **[modulo](mod.md) numbers**: Finite sets of numbers up to some *N* which are allowed to "[overflow](overflow.md)", basic operations like subtraction and multiplication are still well defined. Numbers in computer mostly behave this way. E.g. numbers modulo 5 are 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4.
- **N: natural (without zero)**: "Caveman numbers", the kind of numbers people started to use first. E.g. 1, 10 or 945.
- **[prime](prime.md)**: Are only divisible by 1 and themselves, excluding 1. E.g. 2, 7 or 809.
- **composite**: Aren't primes, excluding 1. For example 4, 22 or 150.
@ -263,9 +264,9 @@ Here is a table of some notable numbers, mostly important in math and programmin
WikiWikiWeb (also *c2 Wiki* or just *Wiki*) was the first ever created [wiki](wiki.md) (user editable) website, created in 1995 in [Perl](perl.md) by [Ward Cunningham](cunningham.md). It was focused on [software engineering](sw_engineering.md) and computer technology in general but included a lot of discussion and pages touching on other topics, e.g. those of politics, humor or nerd and [hacker](hacking.md) culture. The principles on which this site worked, i.e. allowing users to edit its pages, greatly influenced a lot of sites that came after that are now generally called [wikis](wiki.md), of which most famous is [Wikipedia](wikipedia.md). The style of WikiWikiWeb was partly an inspiration for our [LRS wiki](lrs_wiki.md).
WikiWikiWeb (also *c2 Wiki* or just *Wiki*) was the first ever created [wiki](wiki.md) (user editable) website, created in 1995 in [Perl](perl.md) by [Ward Cunningham](cunningham.md). It was focused on [software engineering](sw_engineering.md) and [computer](computer.md) [technology](tech.md) in general but included a plethora of discussion and pages touching other topics as well, e.g. politics, [humor](jokes.md) or nerd and [hacker](hacking.md) culture. The principles on which it stood, most importantly allowing users to edit its the highly [hyperlinked](hyperlink.md) pages, largely influenced thousands of subsequently emerging sites which made use of the same concepts -- these sites are now collectively called [wikis](wiki.md), most famous of which is [Wikipedia](wikipedia.md). The style of WikiWikiWeb was partly an inspiration for our [LRS wiki](lrs_wiki.md) too.
It had over 36000 pages (http://c2.com/cgi/wikiPages). Since 2014 the wiki can no longer be edited due to vandalism, but it's still online. It was originally available at http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki, now at http://wiki.c2.com/ (sadly now requires [JavaScript](js.md), WTF how is this a hacker site???).
The project quite impressively spawned over 36000 pages (http://c2.com/cgi/wikiPages). Since 2014 the wiki can no longer be edited due to vandalism, but it's still online. It was originally available at http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki, now at http://wiki.c2.com/ (sadly now requires [JavaScript](js.md), WTF how is this a hacker site???).
The site's engine was kind of [suckless](suckless.md)/[KISS](kiss.md), even Wikipedia looks [bloated](bloat.md) compared to it. It was pure unformatted [HTML](html.md) that used a very clever system of [hyperlinks](hypertext.md) between articles: any [CamelCase](camelcase.md) multiword in the text was interpreted as a link to an article, so for example the word `SoftwareDevelopment` was automatically a link to a page called *Software Development*. This presented a slight issue e.g. for single-word topics but the creativity required for overcoming the obstacle was part of the [fun](fun.md), for example the article on [C](c.md) was called `CeeLanguage`.
