No cat has 5 legs, but a cat has 4 legs more than no cat, so a cat has 9 legs
this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2026
279 points (94.6% liked)
Science Memes
18162 readers
517 users here now
Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
- Infographics welcome, get schooled.
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
Research Committee
Other Mander Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
- !abiogenesis@mander.xyz
- !animal-behavior@mander.xyz
- !anthropology@mander.xyz
- !arachnology@mander.xyz
- !balconygardening@slrpnk.net
- !biodiversity@mander.xyz
- !biology@mander.xyz
- !biophysics@mander.xyz
- !botany@mander.xyz
- !ecology@mander.xyz
- !entomology@mander.xyz
- !fermentation@mander.xyz
- !herpetology@mander.xyz
- !houseplants@mander.xyz
- !medicine@mander.xyz
- !microscopy@mander.xyz
- !mycology@mander.xyz
- !nudibranchs@mander.xyz
- !nutrition@mander.xyz
- !palaeoecology@mander.xyz
- !palaeontology@mander.xyz
- !photosynthesis@mander.xyz
- !plantid@mander.xyz
- !plants@mander.xyz
- !reptiles and amphibians@mander.xyz
Physical Sciences
- !astronomy@mander.xyz
- !chemistry@mander.xyz
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !geography@mander.xyz
- !geospatial@mander.xyz
- !nuclear@mander.xyz
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !quantum-computing@mander.xyz
- !spectroscopy@mander.xyz
Humanities and Social Sciences
Practical and Applied Sciences
- !exercise-and sports-science@mander.xyz
- !gardening@mander.xyz
- !self sufficiency@mander.xyz
- !soilscience@slrpnk.net
- !terrariums@mander.xyz
- !timelapse@mander.xyz
Memes
Miscellaneous
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Cat has 9 legs and 9 lives, 1 leg per life. Human has 2 legs. Humans have 2 lives
There's these "ontological arguments", which are basically folks trying to prove the existence of a god by reasoning with pure logic, so without relying on evidence. And they all sound like that. 🫠
One of the classics goes roughly like this:
- There is good and bad. (Which is one hell of an axiom.)
- A creature can exist which unifies all good properties. (Yet another hell of an axiom.)
- Because this creature has all these good properties, it would be even gooder, if it did exist.
- Since this creature unifies all good properties and its existence is itself a good property, it therefore must exist.
These arguments are also always funny, because the same logic can be used to "prove" all kinds of things. For example, a perfect island can exist, therefore it must exist. 🙃
As far as I can tell, the arguments don't actually get better over time either, but rather just more convoluted, to make it less obvious how silly they are...
I usually heard the BS from a creationist perspective.
The universe cannot exist without a creator ... which is also a hell of an assumption to turn into an axiom.
and people say religion doesn't harm people... It obliterates their ability to logic.
Emmental can go fuck themselves. Appenzell makes superior cheese.
Dude is tapping into Cantor's infinite empty set and doesn't know it!
Less cheese = fewer holes Fewer holes = more cheese Less cheese = more cheese
less cheese = more cheese = less cheese = more cheese → ∞: infinite cheese glitch
And infinite holes glitch
I thought that was a knife.
cheese = cheese <=> more = less
This is why I don’t trust math. It steals cheese.
Im bored and tired, so im going to write my reasoning out as I attempt to fall asleep.
More cheese = more holes
More cheese (volune) = more holes (volume)
More holes (percentage) = less cheese (percentage)
This cheese is refering yo the material, where the first is referring to the object. Different variables entirely. The first is a group that explicitly includes holes, while the latter explicitly doesn't.
More cheese (volume) = less cheese (percentage)
Idk man im tired.
its because the meme sneakily saying more holes (volume) = more holes (percentage), then using transitivity of equality. This equality isn't allowed since the units doesn't match.
Here's how I think is the best way to word it:
There are really two types of "more holes"
The first is the number of holes. Double the volume of cheese and you double the number of holes.
The second is the density of holes. Say the cheese has 1 hole per cubic inch. Double it to 2 holes per inch and you have twice the empty volume
The first phrase increases the number of holes by merely increasing the volume of cheese.
The second phase increases the number of holes by increasing their density.
Cheese is parceled out by weight, so holes are irrelevant.
Looks, there has gotta be a divide by zero in there somewhere, but I can't find it.
But if I divide by less, Cheese = more/less cheese Which seems legit
RENORMALIZE YOUR CHEESE!
RENORMALIZE YOUR CHEESE!
RENORMALIZE YOUR CHEESE!
Sweep your Infinity Cheese Infinities
under the Persian rug!
More cheese = I eat more cheese = more missing cheese = less cheese
yes cat, cheese with holes is less cheese than cheese without holes of the same dimensions ( you know what i mean lemmy)
Shrinkflation
Not surprising coming from a cat, not its field of expertise. Ask a mouse and it will explain you the difference between intensive and extensive properties of the cheese.
This is a denominator numerator trick.