It seems this isn't true, excepting only the title and the concluding question. FWIW this wasn't at all obvious to me either.
Separate from the specific claims, it seems really unhelpful to say something like this in such a deliberately confusing, tongue-in-cheek way. It's surely unhelpful strategically to be so unclear, and it also just seems mean-spirited to blur the lines between sarcasm and sincerity in such a bleak and also extremely confident write-up, given that lots of readers regard you as an authority and take your thoughts on this subject seriously.
I’ve heard from three people who have lost the better part of a day or more trying to mentally disengage from this ~shitpost. Whatever you were aiming for, it's hard for me to imagine how this hasn't missed the mark.
Yeah, agreed :) I mentioned ω−1 existing as a surreal in the original comment, though more in passing than epsilon. I guess the name Norklet more than anything made me think to mention epsilon--it has a kinda infinitesimal ring to it. But agreed that ω−1 is a way better analog.
This is great! It reminds me a bit of ordinal arithmetic, in which addition is non-commutative. The ordinal numbers begin with all infinitely many natural numbers, followed by the first infinite ordinal, ω. The next ordinal is ω+1, which is greater than ω. But 1+ω is just ω.
Subtraction isn't canonically defined for the ordinals, so ω−1 isn't a thing, but there's an extension of the ordinal numbers called the surreal numbers where it does exist. Sadly addition is defined differently on the surreals, and here it ... (read more)