Petition To Call All Functions Number Machines From Now On

When challenged to "name every male," this genius responded with set theory notation instead of an impossible list. {p : p is male, p ∈ S}, where S is the set of all people is basically saying "the set of all people p such that p is male and p belongs to the set of all people." It's the mathematical equivalent of saying "I'm not writing all those names, but here's the exact definition that covers them all." Checkmate, internet challenger!

The mathematical torus is having an existential crisis! While it's a superstar in topology (the branch of math studying shapes that remain unchanged under stretching and bending), it can't help comparing itself to its tastier look-alikes. Poor torus—geometrically fascinating with its donut shape and one hole, yet forever walking past regular donuts and bagels with food envy! In topology, a torus is basically a surface with one hole—like a donut where mathematicians care about its hole properties, not its deliciousness properties. The ultimate shape-identity crisis!

Ever notice how dads turn math into philosophical nightmares? This poor student was just trying to understand linear algebra when dad dropped the bomb: "You can use ANYTHING for a vector space—even cows—as long as you define what a 'negative cow' would be." 🐄➖ Then the follow-up punch: "Anyone who's heard of Margaret Thatcher can define a negative cow." 💀 That's not just math—that's existential dairy crisis! Vector spaces suddenly went from abstract math to political commentary faster than you can say "eigenvalue."

When your LaTeX editor suggests replacing "rational" with "sensible" in your math proof and suddenly your entire theorem falls apart! This is peak mathematical humor where the editor clearly doesn't understand that √3 isn't just being unreasonable—it's literally irrational by mathematical definition. The "S" at the bottom standing for "Sensible numbers" is killing me. Next thing you know, we'll be classifying numbers as "emotionally stable" instead of "real" and "in therapy" instead of "imaginary."

English grammar decided zero is a party animal while "none" sits alone in the corner. The linguistic absurdity where "zero books" takes a plural noun but should technically be "no book" is peak mathematical identity crisis. Mathematicians spent centuries legitimizing zero as a number, and now it's out here breaking grammar rules like a rebellious teenager. Next time someone corrects your grammar, just remind them that language is as logically consistent as a quantum particle's location.

Even Krillin knows that 4 2 × 3 2 ≠ 4 6 ! Goku's mixing up his exponent rules faster than he teleports with Instant Transmission! Remember folks, when multiplying powers with the same base, you add the exponents (4 2 × 4 3 = 4 5 ). But with different bases like here? You multiply separately then multiply the results! Poor Goku—saving the universe is easier than basic algebra! His power level might be over 9000, but his math skills are definitely under 9!