• 0 Posts
  • 45 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: August 2nd, 2023

help-circle
  • apolo399@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzMultiverse
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    12 days ago

    Sure, but anything that tried to explain the observations would be a dark matter theory, and if that theory involved particles, it’d be a particle theory.

    Dark matter isn’t a theory, nor is it particles, it’s just a body of observations that’s poorly named. In that sense, dark matter definitely exists, we just don’t know in what shape or form.



  • apolo399@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzMultiverse
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    12 days ago

    Dark matter is not a thing, it’s an observation, a phenomenon that was poorly named. There’s so much evidence under the name “[d]ark matter” that we can’t discount it as a real phenomenon. We just don’t have a strong evidence for a single dark matter theory (theory in the scientific sense of the word, not the colloquial one).





  • There are two very different things that take the form •'s:

    1. as the clitic version of a verb, is, has, and sometimes was and does; 2) as the genitive/possessive case marker.

    2. can be attached at the end of all noun phrases, even when the noun phrases is a single pronoun, like it: it’s=it is, it has (or it was and it does in some dialects).

    3. can be attached to all noun phrases except to personal pronouns. These inflect, they change their forms: I>my, mine; you>your, yours; he>his; she>her, hers; it>its; we>our, ours; they>their, theirs.

    Historically, the genitive case marker •'s originated from inflectional morphology in the form of •es. Different classes of nouns would have different case markers but the •es version ended up prevailing over the others as english shed its case system. The apostrophe that turned •es into •'s seems to have come from imitating the french practice of using an apostrophe where a vowel wasn’t pronounced anymore.












  • apolo399@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyz1 + 1
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    7 months ago

    No, it’s correct. You define the operation by it’s properties. It’s not saying that “a plus 0 = a” but “the result of applying the binary operation ‘+’ to any number with 0 should give the original number.”

    • is just a symbol. You could instead write it as +(a,0)=a and +(a,S(b))=S(+(a,b)).

    You have to have previously defined 1=S(0), 2=S(1), 3=S(2), and so on.