Subnostr

I get all that. But wouldn’t it make more sense with numbers?

It's kind of a twist on saying things about statements themselves, leads to contradictions. The classic "this statement is false" type of thing, or "the set of all sets that aren't a memeber of themselves" imo

Takes less letters to write one trillion than fifteen billions for example.

Correct, but as each is defined here and in under 60 letters, they are excluded from consideration. You're not constrained to writing out the way we say the number, you can use all forms of description.

What do you mean by the second sentence? Like writing ten times ten instead of one hundred ?

Yeah

I don’t know about this. Never saw a maths theorem with letters before. Maybe it’s something for fun

Letters instead of digits. But you get my point

Wish we had voice rn lol. You get the gist. Highlights how even formalized language can lead to basic contradictions if you're not more careful. Came up when reading some stuff today on foundations of math... you'll love my upcoming blog post if you like this. Soontm

base32 uses 26 letters and 6 digits

you can consider a byte to be base 256 also, variable integers that use a continuation bit are like a compact base 128 encoding

i mean, keep in mind, you can represent 8 bits as a symbol with a grid of 2x4, that's really not that complicated a set of symbols. also there will be a natural set of symmetries to them, inverses, and mirrors and rotations

Yes, but saying something like "the least number not expressable with fewer than 3 base 10 digits" (1000) is not an interesting framework. This is meant to draw attention to how loose treatment of what feels like rigorous definitions leads to problems.

Ignore that I messed up my example slightly with 1000 instead of "100" above. Just reread it

yeah, sloppy definitions is why i hate dynamic typed languages. i have enough trouble with getting sequence and signs in a muddle with my dyslexia to then pile on top of it ambiguity.

Yeah, it was these types of issues that spurred efforts at formalizing logic in last century, my understanding. Language like this, when not more carefully built up, can do all sorts of self referential tricks.

Even when you do make the efforts to make it concrete, you gave issues as Gödel famously showed a bit later. Just kinda cool to trip out on imo