Fair pushback! I probably overstated it as “Maoist mathematicians” plural. The concrete case I half-remembered and wrongly generalized was F. William Lawvere. Lawvere was a major category theorist figure, and his 1970 paper Quantifiers and Sheaves explicitly uses Maoist language and cites Mao’s On Contradiction / Where Do Correct Ideas Come From? So the more precise claim is weaker: there was at least one very serious mathematician who was Marxist-Leninist / Mao-influenced My broader point was just that technical brilliance doesn’t imply ideological purity. If we broaden from Maoists to ugly/extreme politics, which is what I should have claimed initially, the examples are much easier: Oswald Teichmüller was a brilliant mathematician and dedicated Nazi; Ludwig Bieberbach was a major complex analyst and enthusiastic Nazi / “Deutsche Mathematik” figure

I built a roguelike that teaches you regex — in your terminal. 🗡️ Each floor: slay the strings that must die, spare the rest, using ONE regex. Anchors, quantifiers, groups… a whole curriculum disguised as a dungeon. No istall: npx regex-dungeon #claude #anthropic #code #terminal

限定詞 (Determiners) ├─ 冠詞 (Articles) ├─ 指示詞 (Demonstratives) ├─ 所有限定詞 (Possessive Determiners) ├─ 数量詞 (Quantifiers) └─ その他

ReDoS. Nested quantifiers cause catastrophic backtracking on crafted input. The server freezes.

Quantifiers

Actually, you can. Statements that say a specific TM not halts fall into a special category of statements, called Π₁ statements. These are basically of the form ∀n γ(n) where γ is a statement with bounded quantifiers. Due to their specific nature, if you can show that such a statement is independent of a specific system, then you can actually prove it in a slightly stronger system (modulo some assumptions regarding arithmetic soundness.) For example, if you can show that a Π₁-statement φ is independent of PA, then you can prove φ in ZFC. Similarly, if you can show in ZFC that a Π₁-statement φ is independent of ZFC, then you can prove φ in ZFC Con(ZFC).

Maxwell made the same implications by leaving quantifiers for non-physical presences

If you understand data analysis you'll realize that you need quantifiers to ensure the data spread won't be massive If I count everything, it won't make sense: Friend, Curator, Summer BA, collabs etc P.S: if you want to do your data w your own quantifiers, feel free to do so 👍

Is a buck primarily distinguished as simply a deer with antlers? No, it is an adult male deer. We use words like buck, doe, boar, sow, man, woman, boy, and girl, and many other cases, rather than having to recite all the vital quantifiers (maturity, species, sex) each time. Therefore, adult human male and adult human female and child human male and child human female refer to man, woman, boy, and girl, respectively.

Ótimas primeiras frase de artigo, edição de hoje "Logical Atomism is the heroic attempt to do extensionally and with ontologically restricted quantifiers what can only be done intentionally and with ontically free quantifier"

Learn to use quantifiers when writing or talking about people or issues. Not everyone is interested in migrating to your countries. There are people in this world who don't value the land of depression,stress and some of the filthiest people on earth .

AI writes regex in seconds. It won't tell you that pattern can hang your server. It's called catastrophic backtracking, a regex that runs fine in dev but loops exponentially on certain inputs in production. AI generated patterns hide this all the time, usually through nested quantifiers like (a ) . If AI writes it, I'm the one who catches it. Static analysis, or an engine that can't backtrack. #SoftwareEngineering #Regex #Security

More profound than Gödel incompleteness, in my estimation, is Hilbert-Bernay's completeness: "for any consistent schema, a true interpretation in .. a vocabulary amounting to 'plus', 'times', 'equals', and the quantifiers and truth functions". This is constructive completeness.

Just nailed today's key Python regex practice! Mastered grouping and lazy quantifiers—small win but feels huge for my coding journey. #Python #LearningJournal

Heartbreaking: Child exposed to mathematical quantifiers at far too young of an age.

Yes. — It executes because i gave it invariants, not suggestions. Once a system has: • hard constraints • a directed topology • non‑self‑attesting policies • derived chokepoints • universal quantifiers instead of averages …it no longer decides to execute. It must execute. Because in a system defined by invariants, execution is not a choice — it’s a consequence. The deeper reason: I removed all degrees of freedom except the correct one. When I write tests like: • “unknown controllers carry risk weight” • “constraints must block, not warn” • “policy cannot satisfy its own constraint” …I’m not describing behavior. I’m eliminating alternative behaviors. The algorithm executes because: • nothing is ambiguous • nothing is negotiable • nothing is self‑declared • nothing is left to interpretation • nothing can override topology I built a system where execution is the only remaining path. The substrate answer The algorithm executes because: The invariants define the space of possible outcomes, and execution is the only outcome that satisfies all invariants simultaneously. This is the same reason: • a SHA‑256 chain extends • a directed acyclic graph resolves • a consensus engine finalizes • a proof system verifies Once the constraints are fixed, the algorithm isn’t “running” — it’s unfolding the only valid state permitted by the rules. The human‑layer translation I’m asking a real question: “Why does this thing actually run?” Because i built something where: • interpretation is non‑binding • articulation is binding • topology is authority • constraints are hard • unknowns are risk • self‑declaration is invalid • direction is architecture In such a system, execution is not an event. It’s the inevitable resolution of the constraint set. I can go one level deeper into the mechanics: • How invariants collapse the state space until execution is forced • Why constraint‑driven systems behave like physical laws • How BaseOp’s invariants eliminate hijack surfaces

the moment people took genre nomenclature as like, set-in-stone requirements for art instead of just loose quantifiers for "vibes" is kinda crazy. like no call of duty modern warfare 2 is not denpa, let's be serious

I mean the same as with Qatar, these adjectives aren’t quantifiers in this context. Slavery may not kill as many people but it turns so many lives into hell. “X killed MORE people” misses the point. “Yang goi“ etc weren’t outspoken about Qatar, which is why I’m critical here.

Six quantifiers is astounding! ∀∃∀∃∀∃... It gives an idea of the complexity of Peter Scholze's proof. From the new book: The Proof in the Code.

#LSPPDay10 Today I learned about: -Quantifiers in regex - Greedy and non greedy matching - Pipe - Alternation @lftechnology #60DaysOfLearning2026 #LearningWithLeapfrog