Mathematicians Play “Set” – Math with Bad Drawings

Analyst: Set!
Everybody: Where?
Analyst: How should I understand? I have a presence evidence. It’s not useful.

Topologist: Set!
Everybody: That’s not a set. You have 2 diamonds and a squiggle.
Topologist: I do not get what you’re stating.
Everybody: See? The shapes need to be all the exact same, or all various.
Topologist: Like … various genus?
Everybody: No, see, that’s a diamond. That’s a diamond. That’s a squiggle.
Topologist: Your mouth is making noises however none appear to imply anything.

Category Theorist: Set!
Everybody: Where?
Category Theorist: See, here’s a set that stops working due to the fact that of the textures. Since of the colors, here’s a set that stops working. Since of the numbers, here’s a set that stops working. Since of the shapes, and all 3 of them stop working.
Everybody: That’s simply a lot of stopped working sets.
Category Theorist: Only if you take a look at the incorrect level of abstraction.

Probability Theorist: Set!
Everybody: Wait, what?
Probability Theorist: The anticipated variety of sets is nearly 3. The possibility of a minimum of one is almost 0.97.
Everybody: But we have not dealt the cards.

Probability Theorist: Exactly. When you sample from the circulation, all bets are off.
Logician: Set!
Everybody: Where?
Logician: It’s the set of all sets that do not include themselves.
Everybody: That’s actually all sets in this video game. None include themselves.
Logician: Perfect! Provide me all the cards.
Everybody: ” All the cards” isn’t a set.

Logician: Hey, I comprehend the temptation to specify “set” directly, however I fret this axiomatization isn’t going to get you anywhere.
Data Scientist: Set!
Everybody: Where?
Data Scientist: Two strong squiggles in each color.
Everybody: Um, none of those cards are revealing.

Data Scientist: Okay, the underlying information might have some concerns, however my analysis is still sound.
Set Theorist: Set!
Everybody: Okay, before you state anything, is it the empt–