Source (restricted to non-HBO-Max regions)

Kamala Harris is known to love Venn diagrams and would be cringing hard at this.

For reference, circles in Venn (Euler) diagrams are sets of objects with a certain property. Select objects are shown inside or outside of each circle depending on whether they belong to the set.
A good example is xkcd 2962:
Hard to imagine political rhetoric more microtargeted at me than 'I love Venn diagrams. I really do, I love Venn diagrams. It's just something about those three circles.'

    • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.orgOPEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      If he was a mathematician with an audience of mathematicians that all knew this was wrong, the error could have worked as an extra intentional joke. However, the joke he went for could have been made without this error.

      Basically, this is an unforced mistake that ruined a joke for some while having little to no effect on others’ enjoyment of it. You’re in the latter group and I recognize there is a significant number of you in JO’s live audience as well as on Lemmy, as this post is quite controversial.

  • bobzilla@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    2 years ago

    Can someone explain what part he’s incorrect about? (Since we’re in ConfidentlyIncorrect)

    • Visstix@lemmy.world
      1·
      2 years ago

      The kamabla in the middle suggests that both kama and bla have kamabla in it, since that’s what they have in common. But kama doesn’t have bla, and bla doesn’t have kama. So they should not overlap. Hope that makes sense.

    • napoleonsdumbcousin@feddit.org
      0·
      2 years ago

      A correct Venn diagram of “KAMA” and “BLA” would have only “A” in the middle, because that is the only part that is present in both.

          • tobogganablaze@lemmus.orgEnglish
            01·
            2 years ago

            You have two strings and in the overlap you have the concatenated string formed from the parts. Again, not useful but a totally valid interpretation.

            So … can you actually explain why you think it is incorrect or is snarky comments all you got?

            • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.orgOPEnglish
              1·
              2 years ago

              That picture does not make it clear that the labels refer to regions, not elements. A clearer explanation of set operators is the following:

              Set worksheet

              1. B (Set B)
              2. A ∪ B (Union of A and B)
              3. A (Set A)
              4. A  B (A minus B; notation varies)
              5. B  A (B minus A)
              6. A ∩ B (Intersection of A and B)
      • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.orgOPEnglish
        1·
        2 years ago

        I’m not saying either is good use of Venn diagrams (as opposed to the provided xkcd comic). A better “mathematical” way to express the relation is simply “KAMA + BLA = KAMABLA” (yes, the mathematical sign “+” is not used for concatenation in math but you get the point).

        The tweet would work if we assume:

        • Left set A contains words that include “KAMA”, notably “KAMA” itself
        • Right set B contains words that include “BLA”, notably “BLA” itself
          • Their intersection A ∩ B contains words that belong to both sets, notably “KAMABLA”.

        Is it a technically correct Venn diagram? I’d say it could be, given the above weird assumptions.
        Is a Venn diagram the correct tool for the job? No.

        As for JO’s example with sea creatures: if we assume

        • A is a set of dolphins
        • B is a set of sharks
          • their intersection is an empty set: A ∩ B = { } because no dolphins are sharks

        JO’s example might work if

        • A was a set of properties of dolphins
        • B was a set of properties of sharks
          • their intersection includes “lives in the ocean”: A ∩ B = {“lives in the ocean”, …} because “lives in the ocean” is both a property of dolphins and a property of sharks

        However, this essentially turns around the convention “sets are defined by properties and include objects” to “sets are defined by objects and include their properties”, which is in my opinion even more cringey than considering “words containing ‘BLA’” a notable set. (From a mathematical standpoint. The entire “Kamabla” thing is pure cringe in the practical sense.)