https://pluralistic.net/2026/03/19/jargon-watch/
“language isn't math (which is why double negatives are intensifiers, not negators)”
https://pluralistic.net/2026/03/19/jargon-watch/
“language isn't math (which is why double negatives are intensifiers, not negators)”
@johnpaulflintoff @pluralistic
I once tried to work out a 'Spanish negatives' multiplication system, where EG:
-2 * -3 = -6
so square_root(-9) = -3 and so on.
It's all fun and games until you multiply negatives times positives and try to come out with symmetrical answers.
But it does make one wonder if our language had been different, maybe our math would have been too.
@Phosphenes @johnpaulflintoff @pluralistic The reason you couldn't make it work is because there is only one way to multiply two negatives, and that's how we do it.
Happy to be corrected...
@hopfgeist @khleedril @johnpaulflintoff @pluralistic
Imaginary numbers are an open admission that our math is not entirely consistent. If you can get rid of imaginary numbers, you have resolved an inconsistency.
@hopfgeist @khleedril @johnpaulflintoff
The square root of a negative number provably does not exist. Imaginary numbers both do and do not exist.